One wisdom above all others consists of formulating questions which by their
wording eliminate the answers. Your question starts:
"What do you mean by "...our..."?
The classic reply: "Who is asking?" -- It is you and me and all "who"
*we*can consider normal minds to converse with.
I try to be patient as long as I am around, but cannot take seriously a "LM"
that 'knows' everything 'unknowable' and TELLS US all in an interview. It is
all still in 'our' mind (imagination?) *content*.
Why do you  not 'extract' everything at once? Why piecemeal small portions
of epistemic enrichment? All questions discussed on this and any other forum
could be answered. Why are we so shy? (Maybe life would be intolerably
boring knowing all the answers at once?)
(I got it:
it is the 'mathematically discernible' gap is it a limitation? and
only its 'fears', 'hopes', (=suggestions, fantasies?) we(?) in our feeble
mind work/content can produce similar unreal ideas.)
Is the 'mathematical' included to justify the imperfections of a LM?
 - No, I did not really ask that.
Why did a LM not disclose 'itself' 3000 years ago? with ALL the answers? Why
still teasing us even now? A Sadist Loebian Machine!
Does it have 'rules' on 'how much' to disclose in an interview? Who's rules?
the Allmighty? but that is the LM itself!
You see, I am confused. (ha ha) good for me.

Wishing you the best


On 5/2/07, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear John,
> Le 30-avr.-07, à 20:57, John Mikes a écrit :
> > mind is (mentality of) the unlimited TOE and its vision(s), while body
> > (the somehow limited contraption including the tool for our thinking -
> > call it brain tissue, physical, digital comp, or - horribile dictu:
> > arithmetical - anyway within our limited mentality) is an aspect
> > (partial) of it.
> I asked you this before:  what do you mean by *our* in *our* limited
> mentality?
> Do you mean the Hungarians?
> The Americans?
> The Humans?
> The Apes?
> The Animals?
> The inhabitants of Earth?
> The inhabitants of the Solar System?
> The inhabitants of the Milky Way galaxy?   (they are so much Milky Way
> Minded, you know!)
> or
> The sound lobian machines?
> The omega-consistent lobian machines?
> The consistent lobian machines?
> The lobian machines?
> ...
> The lobian entities?
> ... ?
> > Problem: to reach the total from the limitational part - without the
> > possession (understanding) of the missing rest of it.
> This is exactly, if I get your point, what I think can be done about
> the lobian entities, which, thanks to the mathematically describable
> gap between what the machine can know and what the machine can hope for
> (of fear for, bet, etc.) it is possible to get some large and testable
> overview of the comp consequences for any TOEs based on the comp hyp.
> Including "physical consequences".
> Hope this can motivate you for the "interview" of the L machine (or L
> entity), but be patient, thanks;
> Best,
> Bruno
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to