on perspectives - sense making of sense making.
You seem to believe that there can be no third person account of an
axiomatic of the first person notion.
Right. Why would third person need an account of anything when first person
is already the only accountant?
That's a category error. Math must
.
You seem to believe that there can be no third person account of an
axiomatic of the first person notion.
Right. Why would third person need an account of anything when first
person is already the only accountant?
Exactly. But again, that is a reason to appreciate the subtlety
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 negative prose on possible others. To make
to be mechanically checkable. I play the game of
science, you don't.
It's mutually exclusive if your proof refers to consciousness. It is to say
I want my water to be completely dehydrated.
I have no problem with that, except when you draw negative conclusion.
Humans are used to make negative
On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Matter is concrete sense that extends to the inertial frame of the body.
Get rid of your body, and your dream is matter.
Goo goo goo joob!
Sorry, but that does sound like a surreal 60s lyric, though it could maybe
do with
On 30 October 2013 13:24, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:52:12 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Matter is concrete sense that extends to the inertial frame of the body.
Get rid of your
. We have played out a hand that was picked
centuries ago by dead geniuses. Since then we have not had a chance to pause
and reassess what the strange new ideas of Einstein and Heisenberg really
mean when we look at the implications of them from the absolute perspective.
We have been playing
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 javascript:
wrote:
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:52:12 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Matter is concrete
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 wrote:
On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig
of Einstein and Heisenberg
really
mean when we look at the implications of them from the absolute
perspective.
We have been playing with gigantic machines to study the fantastically
distant and tiny, but no matter how far we go, it increasingly doesn't
make
sense when compared with our
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:29:21 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
On 30 October 2013 14:26, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
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
On 10/29/2013 5:40 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 October 2013 13:24, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:52:12 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
with that, except when you draw negative conclusion.
Humans are used to make negative prose on possible others. To make prose
and get negative proposition is, with all my naive frankness, bad
philosophy.
Jewish, Black, Indians, Women, Gay, Marijuana smokers, are often victims
of that type
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:57:29 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/29/2013 5:40 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 October 2013 13:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:52:12 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
On 30 October 2013 07:15, Craig Weinberg
matter and energy pretend to be bound together as a person, when doing so
would require that they are already aware of each other. It's circular
reasoning...the pile of puppet parts that pretends to be fooled into acting
like the puppet that it never was.
Craig
John M
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013
in *Current Biology*, used a well-known
visual illusion known as 'binocular rivalry' as a technique to make
visual
images invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular
rivalry
happens when each eye is shown an entirely different image. Our brains
cannot then decide between
What do you call ANY PHYSICS? is there a God given marvel (like any
other religious miracle to believe in) callable PHYSICS? I consider it
the explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with the help of math) at the
level of knowledge AT such time of explanation. It was different in 2500
BC, in 1000
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 stath...@gmail.com
wrote
that we have a chance to see
how wrong they were.
François Englert 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
On 29 October 2013 01:12, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
What do you call ANY PHYSICS? is there a God given marvel (like any
other religious miracle to believe in) callable PHYSICS? I consider it the
explanation of certain phenomena (mostly with the help of math) at the level
of knowledge
On Monday, October 28, 2013 8:18:04 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On 29 October 2013 01:12, John Mikes jam...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
What do you call ANY PHYSICS? is there a God given marvel (like any
other religious miracle to believe in) callable PHYSICS? I consider it
the
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 4:23 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are
aware of it
On Sunday
:
*Subject:* Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we
are aware of it
On Sunday, October 27, 2013 7:12:01 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:
Very interesting – and illustrative of how our perception is an artifact
of our mind/brain. It reminds me of an earlier study
On 29 October 2013 12:54, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, October 28, 2013 8:18:04 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On 29 October 2013 01:12, John Mikes jam...@gmail.com wrote:
What do you call ANY PHYSICS? is there a God given marvel (like any
other religious miracle to
Biology*, used a well-known visual
illusion known as 'binocular rivalry' as a technique to make visual images
invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular rivalry happens
when each eye is shown an entirely different image. Our brains cannot then
decide between the alternatives
step
closer to answering this question.
Their research, published in *Current Biology*, used a well-known
visual illusion known as 'binocular rivalry' as a technique to make visual
images invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular rivalry
happens when each eye is shown
closer to answering this question.
Their research, published in *Current Biology*, used a well-known
visual illusion known as 'binocular rivalry' as a technique to make visual
images invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular rivalry
happens when each eye is shown an entirely
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware
of it
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-neural-brain-harder-disrupt-aware.html
We consciously perceive just a small part of the information processed in
the brain – but which information
:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:
everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:46 PM
*To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
*Subject:* Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are
aware
' as a technique to make visual
images invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular rivalry
happens when each eye is shown an entirely different image. Our brains
cannot then decide between the alternatives, and our perception switches
back and forth between the images in a matter of seconds
On 28 October 2013 07:33, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Allegedly Stathis wrote:
*If consciousness supervenes on neurochemistry then the brain will be
different if the conscious state is different. Demonstrating that there is
a change in consciousness without a change in the brain, or a
rivalry' as a technique to make visual images
invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular rivalry happens
when each eye is shown an entirely different image. Our brains cannot then
decide between the alternatives, and our perception switches back and forth
between the images
Bruno wrote: of Whom? Conscious applies to person and they all have some
I, even if they cannot be sure what it is, and perceive it in many ways.
Here I am again in the dichotomy with Brent about 'alive' and 'life':
'conscious' and 'consciousness'! I arrived at the latter as response to
relations
On 23 Sep 2013, at 21:44, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno wrote: of Whom? Conscious applies to person and they all have
some I, even if they cannot be sure what it is, and perceive it in
many ways.
Here I am again in the dichotomy with Brent about 'alive' and 'life':
'conscious' and
On 21 Sep 2013, at 22:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/21/2013 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The content might be, There is a flying pink elephant in my
room. which is both dubitable and almost certainly false. And
if the thought is, I had a conscious thought. that too is
dubitable.
We
The most interesting and less known work of Popper is the foundation of
evolutionary epistemology
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-evolutionary/
which is much more ambitious that falsacionism and mere demarcation and is
far far more interesting.
2013/9/20 Bruno Marchal
On 21 September 2013 12:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/20/2013 3:53 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 September 2013 05:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/20/2013 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Note also that Truth, by definition cannot be Popperian: it is not
falsifiable,
On 20 Sep 2013, at 19:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/20/2013 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Note also that Truth, by definition cannot be Popperian: it is not
falsifiable, of course. That's a common point with consciousness
here-and-now, which is not falsifiable nor doubtable, yet true
(except
On 9/21/2013 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The content might be, There is a flying pink elephant in my room. which is both
dubitable and almost certainly false. And if the thought is, I had a conscious
thought. that too is dubitable.
We agree on this. The indubitable thought is not I was
Hi Chris,
On 20 Sep 2013, at 02:45, chris peck wrote:
Hi John
It doesn't take a genius to realize that if a idea isn't getting
anywhere, that is to say if it doesn't produce new interesting
ideas, your time would be better spent doing something else.
Whats with this idea that the
On 9/20/2013 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Note also that Truth, by definition cannot be Popperian: it is not falsifiable, of
course. That's a common point with consciousness here-and-now, which is not
falsifiable nor doubtable, yet true (except for the zombies of course). OK?
I think that
On 21 September 2013 05:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/20/2013 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Note also that Truth, by definition cannot be Popperian: it is not
falsifiable, of course. That's a common point with consciousness
here-and-now, which is not falsifiable nor
On 9/20/2013 3:53 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 September 2013 05:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/20/2013 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Note also that Truth, by definition cannot be Popperian: it is not
falsifiable, of
course. That's a common
From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2013 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
I also agree that the notions of free will and qualia are two different
On 9/11/2013 5:19 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
I don't think that argument holds water. I can't exclude it of course; unlike some
around here I know I don't know; however it does not seem to me that this is an
inevitable result of the mechanics of processing choice... of making comparisons,
?
Well when my friends and I get together and discuss her there is a common
theme: Her father was rotten to the core. Her mother wasn't any better. She had
a thoroughly rotten childhood. The decisions she makes now, reflect these facts
about her past. This is the conclusion we always reach. She
I also agree that the notions of free will and qualia are two different
things.
Yes, they are two very different things; one is gibberish and the other is
not.
*to argue that “free will”, “self-awareness” etc. are just noise [...] *
Only a fool would say self-awareness is just noise, and
You cannot say you meditate on choices and make decisions and then in
the next breath say that we are deterministic.
Why the hell not?!
Either we are programs – in which case given a knowledge of our
algorithms our behavior and outcomes should be predictable based on a
knowledge of some
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:31 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 9/5/2013 8:34 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote
in hand with
the decisions I make; these qualia are conspicuous by their absence. For
sure, when I make day to day decisions I don't feel under external
duress, but that feeling
is
understandable because I am not under external duress. I am also
aware that there were alternatives available to me other
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
while consciousness may just the data processing feels, there are obviously
going to be different feelings about different data processing (e.g. hope,
fear, lust,...)
Yes.
So I think the interesting question is which
to be an exercise of downward or top-down
causation whereas the lack of free will or habit is upward or down-up
causation.
Here is something Bruno might appreciate. Often when I smoke weed and then
drive home, I am lost. That is, the road that I usually drive on is totally
unfamiliar to me, and I
2013/9/5 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
while consciousness may just the data processing feels, there are
obviously going to be different feelings about different data processing
(e.g. hope, fear, lust,...)
Yes.
So
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Coercion is by persons, not by object or logical things...
So if I were shipwrecked on a desert island then no matter how much I hated
it there and wanted to get back home I would have complete and absolute
free will, but if I ever
On 9/5/2013 10:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Coercion is by persons, not by object or logical things...
So if I were shipwrecked on a desert island then no matter how much I hated it there and
wanted
2013/9/5 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Coercion is by persons, not by object or logical things...
So if I were shipwrecked on a desert island then no matter how much I
hated it there and wanted to get back home I would have
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chris peck
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 7:30 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
Hi Chris
I also do not KNOW whether
stitched into
the new stream of optic signals as they arrive. There is no
discontinuity.
That seems to look at it the wrong way around. Our model of the
world is one in which objects are persistent even when we don't look
at them.
Even more! Today we have good evidences that when we don't
On 03 Sep 2013, at 18:23, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
indeed free does not add much to the will, except to emphasize a
local freedom degrees spectrum.
It doesn't even do that. Will is the set of things I want to do,
It is
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 9/3/2013 3:43 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
By the way the brain produces high
!
you need to convincingly show how free will necessarily arises as a
by-product of some other necessary brain function
And you need to convincingly show that when you make a free will noise
with your mouth you know what you're talking about.
I take it that your position is that free
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Assuming comp it is absolutely undecidable if our universe (if it
exists) is enumerable or not enumerable,
I make no assumptions whatsoever regarding comp, I never touch the stuff;
but if time and space are quantized (a
that when you make a free will noise
with your mouth you know what you're talking about.
I take it that your position is that free will and self awareness
are necessary by-products of intelligence
My position is that because I know for a fact that Evolution produce self
awareness once (and who
On 9/4/2013 9:58 AM, John Clark wrote:
If consciousness is fundamental, and I think it probably is, then after saying that
consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed there is simply nothing
more to say on the subject, if there were then it wouldn't be fundamental.
I don't
On 9/4/2013 10:00 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
*From:* meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:43 PM
*Subject:* Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 9/3/2013 3:43 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
By the way the brain
really would spin around when the camera turned and there would
be no illusion. My point is that neither one is reality but the model
your brain (via evolution) is closer approximation to what we denominate
reality. We want reality to have point-of-view invariance, i.e. to be
something
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 9/4/2013 10:00 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
From: meekerdb mailto:meeke
On 9/4/2013 2:55 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Our brain's are supplying us with our reality and two people immersed in the same
environment will often come away with different descriptions of that environment and
will experience different realities when immersed in that environmental stream
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 4:41 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 9/4/2013 2:55 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:24 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very
powerful computer precisely predict my
future behaviour?
Yes, but only if the computer
On 9/3/2013 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:24 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very
powerful computer precisely predict my
future
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
If not then my actions could not be predicted because they happened for
no reason, they were random.
Or because of the halting problem,
The halting problem involves predictability not determinism; a Turing
Machine is 100%
On 02 Sep 2013, at 17:24, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very
powerful computer precisely predict my
future behaviour?
Yes, but only if the computer didn't tell me what it
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
indeed free does not add much to the will, except to emphasize a local
freedom degrees spectrum.
It doesn't even do that. Will is the set of things I want to do, but some
of those things may not be physically possible,
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 8:37 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:
do you think I
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 2:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very
powerful computer precisely predict my
future behaviour?
Yes, but only if the computer didn't tell me what it predicted
beforehand, because then the
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
I think your position is ridiculous. Evolution has clearly invested a lot
of energy into “free will”
Can not comment, don't know what ASCII sequence free will means.
“self-awareness”, and other qualia that
@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chris peck
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 8:12 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
Hi Chris
if in the end it is an infinitely regressing hall of mirrors, a cosmic
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 9/3/2013 9:27 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Evolution did not go through all
On 9/3/2013 9:27 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Evolution did not go through all the trouble and to expend all the energy our species
expends on creating this sensation within ourselves -- whether it is actually real or an
elaborate (and evolutionarily costly adaptation) to carefully create this
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote
...@verizon.net
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:43 AM
*Subject:* Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 9/3/2013 9:27 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Evolution did not go through all the trouble and to expend all the energy
our species expends
On 9/3/2013 10:54 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
*From:* meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:43 AM
*Subject:* Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 9/3/2013 9:27 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Evolution did not go
From: Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
Of course it didn't. In order to avoid
the world disappear each
time you blink or move your eyes? Of course it doesn't. Your mind maintains a
steady and beautifully rendered illusion of the world in your mind that is
seamlessly stitched into the new stream of optic signals as they arrive. There
is no discontinuity.
When you turn
. There is no discontinuity.
That seems to look at it the wrong way around. Our model of the world is one in which
objects are persistent even when we don't look at them. That's a better model than one in
which they only exist when we look at them. So our brain is creating the better model
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very powerful
computer precisely predict my
future behaviour?
Yes, but only if the computer didn't tell me what it predicted beforehand,
because then the computer's
On 9/2/2013 8:24 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very powerful
computer
precisely predict my
future behaviour?
Yes, but only if the
and doing anything
else except for things that prolong its existence (like maintaining its
communication link) when it detects something unusual that it thinks might
be dangerous.
If this isn't faked by a clever developer,
That's not a very profound insight. If you want to know if the Goldbach
concept, free will is a
human noise. Moo is a bovine noise. And when somebody says something is
emergent, unless they give at least a hint of how it emerges and why, all
they're really pointing out is the limitations common words have in
uncommon situations; we usually don't encounter just one water
these things yourself, even if you pretend you did not for
the sake of argument.
Moo is a bovine noise. And when somebody says something is
emergent, unless they give at least a hint of how it emerges and why, all
they're really pointing out is the limitations common words have in uncommon
situations; we
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
do you think I am trying to pretend that I am deterministic within my
own self?
I think you believe you are not deterministic and also not not
deterministic, which is equivalent to saying I think you believe in
then somebody chatting with a program,
about the weather in Blackford Lancashire, and fooling the human.
Mitch
-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Aug 31, 2013 11:37 am
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass
The example of heliocentric vs geocentric views is a good one to show the
limitation of the reductionist impulse. While Earth happens to be a part of a
heliocentric topology, the fact that it is easy to mistake the Sun for the more
'moving object' is not in any way an endorsement of the
-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Aug 31, 2013 1:12 pm
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
Lets jump ahead of the logic and technology, and presume a successful digital
imitation of the human brain in several decades. More than the Turing Test,
assuming
On 8/31/2013 10:12 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Lets jump ahead of the logic and technology, and presume a successful digital imitation
of the human brain in several decades. More than the Turing Test, assuming that no
programmer or developer inserts a complex program, made to fool human
to leave, as Brent pointed out?
then that qualifies as a
separate, and better, living thing, then most of us humans.
-Original Message-
From: spudboy100 spudboy...@aol.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Aug 31, 2013 1:12 pm
Subject: Re: When
long chain of individual events
Then it's deterministic but we don't know it's deterministic.
To give an example say the test subject almost lost their life when they
were putting down red triangle on the road to warn on-coming traffic that
their vehicle was disabled on the side of the road
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 12:01 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 24 Aug 2013, at 17:57, Quentin Anciaux
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
What happens to a universal Turing machine, if the tape itself is being
written by some other process
The same thing that happens to you when you get pushed around by the
external environment.
John K Clark
201 - 300 of 437 matches
Mail list logo
