Re: Uploaded Worm Mind

On 9/4/2015 7:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Sep 2015, at 20:26, meekerdb wrote: On 9/3/2015 8:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Sep 2015, at 22:48, meekerdb wrote: On 9/2/2015 8:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So now you agree with me that there are different kinds and degrees

Re: Uploaded Worm Mind

On 9/3/2015 8:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Sep 2015, at 22:48, meekerdb wrote: On 9/2/2015 8:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So now you agree with me that there are different kinds and degrees of consciousness; that it is not just a binary attribute of an axiom + inference system

Fwd: Robot hallucinations

Forwarded Message If You Give a Robot Acid image

Re: Uploaded Worm Mind

On 9/2/2015 8:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So now you agree with me that there are different kinds and degrees of consciousness; that it is not just a binary attribute of an axiom + inference system. ? Either you are conscious, or you are not. But is a roundworm either conscious or not? an

Re: Uploaded Worm Mind

On 9/2/2015 2:23 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > So if there are different kinds of consciousness then a being with more kinds is more conscious. It seems that your dictum, "Your either conscious or not." is being diluted away to mere slogan. There is only one way of not being conscious, so

Re: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options?

On 8/31/2015 3:19 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 2:14 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: ​ ​ >> Aristotle ​ believed that heavy objects fell more quickly than light ones, something that could have bee

Re: Uploaded Worm Mind

On 8/31/2015 1:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Aug 2015, at 20:25, meekerdb wrote: On 8/30/2015 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Aug 2015, at 03:08, Russell Standish wrote: Well as people probably know, I don't believe C. elegans can be conscious in any sense of the word. Hell - I

Re: Uploaded Worm Mind

On 8/31/2015 5:56 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Monday, August 31, 2015, Bruno Marchal > wrote: On 31 Aug 2015, at 00:42, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 12:34:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30

Re: Uploaded Worm Mind

On 8/30/2015 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Aug 2015, at 03:08, Russell Standish wrote: Well as people probably know, I don't believe C. elegans can be conscious in any sense of the word. Hell - I have strong doubts about ants, and they're massively more complex creatures. I think

Re: A scary theory about IS

On 8/30/2015 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: - the governments know that prohibition is the main fuel of criminality and terrorism. So Muslims flew planes into buildings government (which one?) prohibited something (what?). Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options?

On 8/30/2015 10:35 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ​ ​ The dogma did not come from Plato, nor even Aristotle, ​All the ancient greeks in your own words ​ believe in what they understand, not

Re: Uploaded Worm Mind

On 8/30/2015 5:42 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 07:46:33PM -0400, Jason Resch wrote: There's roughly a 100x increase in number of neurons, scaling from the nematode to the fruit fly, to the mouse, cat, and then human. If efficiency and power of computers for a given cost

Re: Uploaded Worm Mind

On 8/28/2015 3:00 PM, Jason wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_i1NKPzbjM So what do you think? Is it conscious? Bremt -- 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,

Fwd: Re: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options?

Forwarded Message Subject: Re: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options? Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:32:37 +1000 From: Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com Reply-To: everything-list@googlegroups.com To:

Re: Mathematics is Physics

Am 24.08.2015 um 20:10 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/24/2015 10:27 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Am 23.08.2015 um 19:47 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/23/2015 12:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you can read his answer to comments. I read his answer

Re: Mathematics is Physics

On 8/24/2015 10:27 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Am 23.08.2015 um 19:47 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/23/2015 12:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you can read his answer to comments. I read his answer and it's silly. He says that Darwin's

Re: Mathematics is Physics

On 8/23/2015 12:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Am 23.08.2015 um 00:27 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/22/2015 9:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: An argument based on a selection might be empty. See Jerry Fodor, Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings I

Re: Mathematics is Physics

On 8/22/2015 9:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: An argument based on a selection might be empty. See Jerry Fodor, Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings I guess you might get that impression if you read Fodor. But I suggest you read the

Fwd: Pronoun Obsolete

JKC will feel vindicated. But unfortunately we don't have enough proper nouns to go around. Brent Forwarded Message http://phys.org/news/2015-08-pronoun-obsolete.html /Microbiologists have coined new terms for these collective entities – *holobiont *– and for their

Re: Mathematics is Physics

I like Wenmackers essay too. http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Wenmackers_Wenmackers_FQXiE.pdf Brent On 8/18/2015 3:25 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.02770 (reverse of Tegmark) cf. http://phil.elte.hu/leszabo/matfil/2015-2016-1/ - pt -- You received this

Re: The Mental Being

On 8/18/2015 12:52 PM, John Mikes wrote: Dear Samiya, IMO 'supernatural' bounces back intu 'natural' what is EVERYTHING in (and around?) the World, the Entirety, including all you may add into God. So NOTHING is Supernatural. Regards John Supernatural really plays on the human/natural

Re: The Mental Being

On 8/17/2015 1:52 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent, I really hate to contrast you, I appreciate your mind and stances. However: /About 1700 US troops died in Afghanistan in six years under Obama. About 600 died under Bush. In Iraq 256 died under Obama, and 4500 under Bush. But a further hundred

Re: The Mental Being

On 8/16/2015 12:52 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent: did it slip your mind that your friend, the prez started the Arab Awakening by stabbing Mubarak in the back by his letter and supporting the US-enemy Morsi (The first DEMOCRATICALLY(?) elected Egyptian prez and his Brotherhood!!!) What's your

Re: The Mental Being

On 8/16/2015 11:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: and yes they were totalitarian and many atheists claim not to be. They killed to support atheism, which is indisputable, It's not only disputable, it's unevidenced. They didn't care what people believed about the supernatural,

Fwd: Inconsistency Robustness

What do you think of Hewitt's proof of the consistency of mathematics, Bruno? Brent Forwarded Message College Publications (May 20, 2015) amazon.com/Inconsistency-Robustness-Carl-Hewitt/dp/1848901593 http://amazon.com/Inconsistency-Robustness-Carl-Hewitt/dp/1848901593

Re: Idiot Test

On 8/14/2015 2:11 PM, Kim Jones wrote: Idiocy only ever applies to other people, yes. It's like sexual perversion and corruption; these things are done only by others, never by me! Why I speak of the need for some fabled 'test' - a bit like Alice drinking from the bottle marked 'drink me'.

Re: Idiot Test

If you think you have a sure fire way to identify an idiot...it's you. Brent On 8/11/2015 4:06 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 11 Aug 2015, at 10:26 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: No doubt that it would be interesting to look at. Salvia has been called a cure

Re: The Mental Being

On 8/9/2015 6:33 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Brent, false! They killed to suppress religious belief, and exterminate believers, Nonsense. You've swallowed the religious propaganda. The killings were purely punishment for opposing the regime or not working hard enough for it.

Re: The Mental Being

On 8/8/2015 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: When pseudo-religious people attack the doubting attitude in religion, they show up their lack of faith. Only someone NOT believing in God can believe there is a need for humans to do something for the faith of others. Those who have faith trust God for

Re: The Mental Being

- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Aug 8, 2015 1:08 pm Subject: Re: The Mental Being On 8/8/2015 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: When pseudo-religious people attack the doubting attitude in religion, they show up

Re: Michelangelo's Stone: an Argument against Platonism in Mathematics

On 7/31/2015 11:28 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Saturday, August 1, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Forwarded Message Michelangelo's Stone: an Argument against Platonism in Mathematics *ROVELLI, Carlo**Â (2015

Re: R: Re: Michelangelo's Stone: an Argument against Platonism in Mathematics

On 8/1/2015 12:53 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: -It's true that the Platonic universe contains all mathematical structures, including trivial or uninteresting ones, -Not only trivial and uninteresting, but also contrary to the ones that are interesting. Brent Putnam (in his

Fwd: Michelangelo's Stone: an Argument against Platonism in Mathematics

Forwarded Message Michelangelo's Stone: an Argument against Platonism in Mathematics *ROVELLI, Carlo** (2015) **/Michelangelo's Stone: an Argument against Platonism in Mathematics./** [Preprint]* If there is a /€œplatonic world/€ M of mathematical facts, what

Re: David Deutsch and Constructor Theory

On 7/28/2015 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: To refute what I say, you have to show a math theory which assumes something physical. Even quantum information theory does not assume any physical objects. They assume only mathematical relations. That's not significant. Information theory is the

book deal

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3805 Brent -- 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

Re: David Deutsch and Constructor Theory

On 7/28/2015 1:12 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Jul 2015, at 20:33, meekerdb wrote: On 7/28/2015 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: To refute what I say, you have to show a math theory which assumes something physical. Even quantum information theory does not assume any physical objects

Re: David Deutsch and Constructor Theory

On 7/26/2015 4:16 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: David Deutsch has some things to say which are relevant to discussions of computationalism. http://edge.org/conversation/constructor-theory One of the first rather unexpected yields of this theory has been a new foundation for information theory.

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 7/22/2015 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jul 2015, at 19:42, meekerdb wrote: On 7/21/2015 10:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So maybe one could see W AND W the same way I can see my computer screen AND my dog - just by attending to one or the other. You will need a long neck

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 7/21/2015 7:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jul 2015, at 00:05, chris peck wrote: the question asked to him in Helsnki concerns his expectation of his experiences, and thus his experience content, which can only be seeing one city among W and M, i.e. W or M. nah. he can expect to have

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 7/21/2015 10:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So maybe one could see W AND W the same way I can see my computer screen AND my dog - just by attending to one or the other. You will need a long neck to attend a conference in Moscow, and a party in Washington. You can use a tele-vision system,

Re: Vast Methane releases in Arctic Ocean

On 7/16/2015 5:50 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: On the Day of Reckoning, God will not bless them nor shower His grace upon them, and they will spend an eternal life in the Fire, neither living nor dying, removed from God's mercy. You can safely assume you've created God in your

Re: Re: A curious puzzle - teaching a computer to understand infinity

On 07/14/15, John Clark wrote: On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 , Brent wrote: ​ ​Just ask yourself how you grasp the notion of infinity. ​I don't have a visceral grasp of the true immensity of infinity. Do you? ​ No, I don't, which was more or less my point. What we think of as our

Re: A curious puzzle - teaching a computer to understand infinity

Just ask yourself how you grasp the notion of infinity. It's not by dividing by zero. It's by using and then... There's no obstacle in principle to having a computer reason about the consequences of having an axiom of succession. It doesn't need to have an infinite memory capacity to do so

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 7/6/2015 9:19 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 10:07 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: ​\​ Suppose a duplicated person is like the Borg. After the duplication there are not two consciousnesses, one aware of Washington and one aware

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 7/6/2015 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: ​ ​ ​ But there is a contradiction; if you asked the guy looking at the Washington Monument what the Kremlin looks like he wouldn't

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 7/6/2015 4:04 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 7/6/2015 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: If there's only one consciousness which is aware of both Washington and Moscow

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 7/6/2015 1:47 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: On Jul 6, 2015 3:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 7/6/2015 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote

Re: Closest Continuer Theory

On 7/5/2015 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You forget that we want to solve the mind-body problem (called nowadays the hard problem of consciousness, but with comp the cpnsciousness part is easy, I don't see that it's easy. I don't see much connection between what is provable in arithmetic my

Re: Closest Continuer Theory

On 7/5/2015 4:39 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Since the mind supervenes on the physical brain, and both are the product of biological (and physical) evolution, the details of understanding this process are firmly in the realm of empirical science -- it is basically an engineering problem. My

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 7/5/2015 6:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So Brent, when Bruno talks about *HE* or *THE* first person perspective what the hell is Bruno talking about? He is the guy in Helsinki. And the designates the unique experience, in one city, which is accessible for he, the guy which is presently

Re: Closest Continuer Theory

On 7/3/2015 8:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Jul 2015, at 14:57, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Jul 2015, at 02:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: In the context of the present discussion, I would say that UDA+MGA does not entail immaterialism. Logically no. Episitemologically,

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 7/3/2015 9:15 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.netwrote: ​ ​ Your misusing the grammar and treating it as fact. The first-person perspective doesn't imply there is only one person; it's just a label for a certain

Re: Closest Continuer Theory

On 7/3/2015 5:57 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Jul 2015, at 02:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: In the context of the present discussion, I would say that UDA+MGA does not entail immaterialism. Logically no. Episitemologically, yes. Primitive matter becomes a phlogiston or

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 7/2/2015 9:09 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com mailto:terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: ​ ​ I don't see how you can feel entitled to berate people about the use of personal pronouns if you are confused on the

Re: Closest Continuer Theory

On 7/1/2015 7:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Jun 2015, at 20:10, meekerdb wrote: On 6/30/2015 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That is what unitary evolution means. As I said: This means that physics is completely computable -- Turing emulable. But that is what quantum mechanics

Re: Closest Continuer Theory

On 6/30/2015 6:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:10:06AM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 6/30/2015 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK. No problem with this. But my interest are in consciousness and qualia, and the advantage of computer science is that it can handles

Re: Closest Continuer Theory

On 6/30/2015 9:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 07:08:39PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 6/30/2015 6:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:10:06AM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 6/30/2015 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK. No problem with this. But my

Re: Closest Continuer Theory

On 6/30/2015 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That is what unitary evolution means. As I said: This means that physics is completely computable -- Turing emulable. But that is what quantum mechanics in the Everettian interpretation tells us. Unitary evolution preserves (quantum) information,

Re: Closest Continuer Theory

On 6/29/2015 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Jun 2015, at 12:27, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Jun 2015, at 01:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Jun 2015, at 04:19, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Jun 2015, at 14:27, Bruce Kellett

Re: Closest Continuer Theory

On 6/29/2015 4:46 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Jun 2015, at 12:27, Bruce Kellett wrote: This then gives the entire universe. The computation may be repeated many times, but by the identity of indiscernibles, those repetitions are just the same universe. Assuming that

Re: Closest Continuer Theory

On 6/28/2015 12:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: No problem. But only in step seven do we suppose a concrete primary physical universe, and that it is responsible for our experience (this is the reductio-ad-absurdum hypothesis). Why must it be assumed primary (a term whose meaning is not all

Re: Closest Continuer Theory

On 6/28/2015 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Jun 2015, at 09:45, Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruce Kellett wrote: But the alternative does not establish the required result either. If the brain ceases to be conscious as the connections are removed -- either gradually or with the loss of some

Re: R: Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 6/28/2015 2:38 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: True randomness is not computable by (at least one) definition of random. But a good pseudo-random number generator would not be detectable for many steps (SFMT period = 2^216091). -Brent That reminds me of Saint

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 6/27/2015 9:20 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: But surely phenomena in quantum physics and Conways Life are random, but computable? Conway's Life is computable

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 6/27/2015 11:58 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Don't you suspect that the conclusion that phenomena can have an effect, sans cause, is largely because our ability to measure phenomena, is limited by our equipment, that isn't sophisticated or refined sufficiently to detect the true

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 6/27/2015 2:25 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.netwrote: ​ ​ Conway's Life is computable but not predictable, ​ ​ That raises a question as to what predictable means. ​ If using the standard

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 6/25/2015 7:09 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Friday, June 26, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/25/2015 11:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ISTM there's an equivocation here between a continuation in consciousness

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 6/25/2015 11:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wednesday, June 24, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/22/2015 11:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 23 June 2015 at 14:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml

Re: Has this come up before? Seems to qualify as a non-comp theory.

On 6/23/2015 8:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 24 June 2015 at 02:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com mailto:stath...@gmail.com wrote: consciousness may not need physical

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 6/22/2015 11:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 23 June 2015 at 14:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/22/2015 8:11 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 23 June 2015 at 10:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 6/22/2015 10:10 PM, Pierz wrote: On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 11:31:26 AM UTC+10, Bruce wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/22/2015 5:37 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/22/2015 2:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tuesday, June 23, 2015, meekerdb meek

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 6/22/2015 3:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 22 June 2015 at 17:33, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: The closest continuer idea is wrong on many counts. Both copies

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 6/22/2015 2:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tuesday, June 23, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/22/2015 3:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 22 June 2015 at 17:33, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au javascript:_e(%7B%7D

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 6/22/2015 5:37 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/22/2015 2:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tuesday, June 23, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/22/2015 3:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I diverge from my previous self

Re: A riddle for John Clark

If there's a tie then it would seem that there is only one person (identity of indiscernibles). But I think that's impossible for longer that milliseconds, since the two copies are at different spacetime locations. Brent On 6/22/2015 12:05 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 6/22/2015 8:11 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 23 June 2015 at 10:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/22/2015 2:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tuesday, June 23, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

Re: Reconciling Random Neuron Firings and Fading Qualia

On 6/21/2015 8:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Z is what the machine can say about the []p t points of view (like the bet that you will have coffee in the modified step 3 protocol).[]coffee means you get coffee in all consistent extensions (which in this protocol are W and M), and t is the

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 6/21/2015 8:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jun 2015, at 23:32, meekerdb wrote: On 6/19/2015 10:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jun 2015, at 02:36, meekerdb wrote: On 6/18/2015 4:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/18/2015 1:10 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jun 18

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 6/20/2015 1:13 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: But the two chunks of matter organized in a John Clarkian way were not exactly the same The two don't really have to be exactly the same, just similar enough

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 6/20/2015 9:05 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com mailto:terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: You find yourself in a sealed room. There is only one exit, a door. The next person to open the door will be killed, at which point the door

Re: A riddle for John Clark

On 6/20/2015 2:42 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: They will have different thoughts almost immediately, e.g. I see a John Clark to my left. vs I see a John Clark to my right. Not if they were facing each

Re: A mathematical description of the level IV Multiverse

On 6/19/2015 8:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Jun 2015, at 01:41, meekerdb wrote: On 6/15/2015 8:15 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Therefore, perhaps proof of truth is an unattainable goal in math. Perhaps proof of truth is an unattainable goal anywhere. Math isn't concerned with true, it's

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 6/19/2015 10:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Jun 2015, at 02:36, meekerdb wrote: On 6/18/2015 4:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/18/2015 1:10 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net This is gitting muddled. '2+2=4

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 6/18/2015 4:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/18/2015 1:10 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net This is gitting muddled. '2+2=4' is a tautology if the symbols are given their meaning by Peano's axioms or similar axiom

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 6/18/2015 10:07 AM, John Clark wrote: If in Helsinki you predict I will see both W and M, BOTH reconstituted persons will have to write I was wrong: I definitely see only one city. If the word I is just an abbreviation for Bruno Marchal in the above then the replacement could

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 6/18/2015 8:35 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: '2+2=4' is a tautology by virtue of the meanings of the terms involved. Yes, and E=MC^2 is a tautology too as is every correct mathematical

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 6/18/2015 1:10 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: This is gitting muddled. '2+2=4' is a tautology if the symbols are given their meaning by Peano's axioms or similar axiom set and rules

Fwd: Self-awareness not unique to mankind

Forwarded Message http://phys.org/news/2015-06-self-awareness-unique-mankind.html -- 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

Re: A mathematical description of the level IV Multiverse

On 6/15/2015 8:15 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Therefore, perhaps proof of truth is an unattainable goal in math. Perhaps proof of truth is an unattainable goal anywhere. Math isn't concerned with true, it's only concerned with what theorems follow from given axioms. Traditionally the axioms

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On 6/15/2015 1:27 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 16:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/10/2015 6:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 11:21, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/10/2015 4:06 PM

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 6/14/2015 8:08 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 15 June 2015 at 14:19, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: It is plausible that regularities are a required feature of conscious existence This seems very likely, but it does assume

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 6/15/2015 12:40 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/14/2015 8:08 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 15 June 2015 at 14:19, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: It is plausible that regularities are a required feature

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 6/14/2015 2:49 PM, LizR wrote: On 15 June 2015 at 08:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I'm not saying it's ineffective. I'm saying it's not a mystery why it's effective. Because the universe appears to operate on principles that map very well onto

Re: super intelligence and self-sampling

On 6/15/2015 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Jun 2015, at 01:21, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 06:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A human is an ape which torture other apes. Not just torture but also

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 6/14/2015 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Arithmetic is full of life, ... and taxes and death. But it needs interpretation to be full of death and taxes. Otherwise it is just abstract relations. That's exactly why it is so useful; the same relations hold under many different

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 6/14/2015 12:45 PM, LizR wrote: On 14 June 2015 at 16:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/13/2015 9:18 PM, LizR wrote: None of this explain why it works so well anyway. I don't understand why the effectiveness of mathematics

Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal

On 6/13/2015 9:18 PM, LizR wrote: None of this explain why it works so well anyway. I don't understand why the effectiveness of mathematics is considered problematic. First, we, creatures who evolved in this world, invented it to be useful. We invented counting and arithmetic to be used in

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/12/2015 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 21:00, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote: On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You say that comp is useless, but what is your theory of mind. What

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/12/2015 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is bizarre that some people tarnish the effort of people working in some field, and admits not being interested in the question. may be Bruce just confuse physics and metaphysical physicalism. Bruno One might be interested in the idea that

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

On 6/12/2015 1:01 PM, John Mikes wrote: You wrote: /(Brent):/ /But the existence of a first person viewpoint depends on a stable physics. The two are not separable*.*/ /(Bruno):/ /Exactly, that is why we can derive physics from the self-referentially correct machine theory./ /.../ / / The

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >