Re: Any human who has played a bit of Arimaa can beat a computer hands down.
If you see the image in the mirror and interact with it, then there has to be something conscious somewhere. Just like a human controlling a remote control car. The consciousness might exist somewhere else, but the car can behave as intelligently as a human. Jason On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:30:29 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Apr 2013, at 00:07, Craig Weinberg wrote (to Jason) There are algorithms for implementing anything that does not involve infinities. Why do you think so? What algorithm implements purple or pain? What make you think that purple or pain don't involve infinities? (Also, many algorithm does involve infinities. Machines can provide name for ordinals up to the Church-Kleene omega_1^CK ordinal, and they can reason in ZF like any of us. I don't see why computers cannot beat the humans in the naming of infinities, even if that task can be considered as the least algorithmic one ever conceived by humans). I should clarify what I meant by infinities. I meant there are algorithms that for computing anything that can be solved which does not require an infinite number of steps or infinite precision to do so. So unless infinite precision or infinite steps are required to emulate brain behavior, a computer should be capable of expressing all outwardly visisble behaviors any human can. (Craig has disputed this point before) A mirror can express all outwardly visible behaviors of a human already. Put a speaker at mouth level behind the mirror, a camera at eye level, a microphone at ear level, and voila, you have a mirror zombie. The only difference with an AI zombie is that the behaviors have been approximated statistically from correlations of analyzed recordings so that the mirroring is divided up into bits and controlled mathematically. Taking this to the level of brain behavior only makes the bits much more numerous. Craig Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Any human who has played a bit of Arimaa can beat a computer hands down.
On Saturday, April 6, 2013 2:53:53 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: If you see the image in the mirror and interact with it, then there has to be something conscious somewhere. Just like a human controlling a remote control car. The consciousness might exist somewhere else, but the car can behave as intelligently as a human. No, there only has *to have been* consciousness at some time. The 'mirror' could be a recording that you made of yourself projected behind the glass in which you can appear to interview yourself for an hour about your childhood. Could an audience tell that you were not interviewing your identical twin? What computer programming does is allow us to record formalized functions which reflect our presence which are so fragmented and numerous that they can be reconstituted from the bottom-up rather than the top down. A spoken phrase is digitally synthesized not as a conscious thought or feeling being stepped down into a phrase made of words, but as an assembly of dumb phonemes associated quantitatively to a programmatic condition. It is an an a-signifying sequence which can be replayed as as needed, without intelligence, understanding, or responsibility, but as a logicalphonetic machine...a kind of crossword puzzle for a powered filing cabinet to fill out. The intelligence of a computer program is evidence of an intelligent, conscious programmer's efforts, but that's all. Everything else is the pathetic fallacy. Craig Jason On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:30:29 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote: On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Apr 2013, at 00:07, Craig Weinberg wrote (to Jason) There are algorithms for implementing anything that does not involve infinities. Why do you think so? What algorithm implements purple or pain? What make you think that purple or pain don't involve infinities? (Also, many algorithm does involve infinities. Machines can provide name for ordinals up to the Church-Kleene omega_1^CK ordinal, and they can reason in ZF like any of us. I don't see why computers cannot beat the humans in the naming of infinities, even if that task can be considered as the least algorithmic one ever conceived by humans). I should clarify what I meant by infinities. I meant there are algorithms that for computing anything that can be solved which does not require an infinite number of steps or infinite precision to do so. So unless infinite precision or infinite steps are required to emulate brain behavior, a computer should be capable of expressing all outwardly visisble behaviors any human can. (Craig has disputed this point before) A mirror can express all outwardly visible behaviors of a human already. Put a speaker at mouth level behind the mirror, a camera at eye level, a microphone at ear level, and voila, you have a mirror zombie. The only difference with an AI zombie is that the behaviors have been approximated statistically from correlations of analyzed recordings so that the mirroring is divided up into bits and controlled mathematically. Taking this to the level of brain behavior only makes the bits much more numerous. Craig Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
The Platonic basis of Relativity, quantum entanglement, and superluminal communication
The Platonic basis of Relativity, quantum entanglement, and superluminal communication The relativity of spacetime and the evidence of quantum nonlocality are aberrations fom classical physics, which is based on Newtonian physics, where space and time are absolute quantities. But these phenomena emerged quite naturally from Leibniz's metaphysics, which is based on the Cartesian bifurcation of the universe into two intervening categories of existence: a) Mental (Platonic) or monadic existence, which is everywhere now because not extended in spacetime. b) Physical existence, which is extended in spacetime, and so is always here and now. Perhaps these are simply different dimensions of existence, but I leave that for subsequent study. Einstein discovered the relativity of space and time intuitively (no doubt as an incursion into the Platonic or mental realm, as Penrose has described it). Similarly, quantum nolocality is a natural property of Leibniz's (or Plato's) mental space, in which space and time do not have standing, to use the legal term. However, since space and time do have standing (exist) in the physical or extended world, but do not have standing (do not exist) in the mental or inextended world means that while physical particles cannot move faster than the speed of light, information, a mental property, can be transferred at superluminal speeds. This being so suggests that the control of the physical world cannot be pphysical, but comes from the mental dimension Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 4/6/2013 http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Free-Will discussion
On Saturday, April 6, 2013 5:01:49 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Friday, April 5, 2013 6:47:00 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Why are all of your actions obviously due to subconscious influences? If that were the case why would personal awareness exist? Your actions are due to physical processes in your brain which move your muscles, but you are not actually aware of these physical processes. How can you be any more aware of those processes than by being them? Because I have no idea that these processes are going on, or even that I have a brain. Why do you think people used to believe that they think with their hearts, or with their immaterial soul? People thought that because they tried to explain private physics in the terms of public physics instead of understanding it in its own terms. You already are aware of the relevant aspects of your brain function, and aware of them in a way which is a million times more detailed than any fMRI could ever be. The problem is that you are making the same mistake that the immaterialists make only in reverse. You begin with absolute certainty in what instruments have shown us of the outside of matter to the extent that you doubt what your own native senses tell you about the inside of matter. You use the word subconscious differently to the way most people do. Most processes in your body occur subconsciously in the conventional sense of the word. It makes it difficult to participate in a discussion when you redefine words. At least make it explicit when you do so. Point taken - in general I do tend to blurt based on my own worked-through understanding of things, but I do that intentionally because its a way for me to see if they fit with all of the rest of what is being discussed. It's a way of beta-testing the the deeper implications of the concept. In this case, however, I'm not sure that I'm using subconscious in a different way, its that I'm challenging how you are using your in all of your actions are obviously due to subconscious influences. To me, using that 'your' to mean the behavior of your body is an ideologically loaded presumption. The body becomes your body through private conscious association (you will let people do surgery on your body since by being unconscious, it is not really your body at the time as far as your personal awareness is concerned). It is a generic public artifact which is not just subconscious, but actually devoid of all private content. It is an impersonal presentation of a particular slice of biological history made temporarily interactive...or that's how it appears from the outside anyhow. You seem stuck on the belief that it is not possible to be conscious if the processes leading to consciousness are deterministic, random or subconscious. As a matter of logical deduction, this is false. It is possible for a thing to have qualities different from its parts. This would be a case where the intentional would have to come from its complete opposite - from the unintentional (determined and random), which could happen theoretically, but not in a universe which had no use for intention. A universe where intentionality is fundamental can pretend to be unintentional, but unintentional can't pretend to be anything. Unintentional is anesthetic and has no plausible use for intention. It sounds again like something you have just made up. What's worse, you present it as certain or self-evident. It is an understanding of what seems certain and self-evident. It's no more or less made up than any such understanding that any scientist or philosopher has ever had. Why does the universe need to hae a use for something? Who made this rule? It's not a rule it's reason. If there were no fish in the water, there would be no such thing as gills. If there were gills on a cow, then that would be weird, especially if someone was saying that gills are an illusion. The universe is not conscious and doesn't care. Here you use the same ideology. The universe then either cannot include you, or you are not conscious and don't care. Which is it? We could be wiped out tomorrow by an asteroid hit and everything else would continue as before. Perhaps life and intelligence will evolve again, perhaps they won't. Yes, the universe is a dynamic, multi-level syzygy of private intentional sequences and public unintentional consequences. Not everything knows or cares about human beings or planet Earth but that doesn't mean that consciousness and caring isn't as real as helium or the Andromeda galaxy. And what difference does it make if you say intentionality is fundamental or emergent? It could be a fundamental fact that consciousness will emerge when
What is a Substance ? What is a Man ?
Hi What is a Substance ? What is a Man ? COMMENT: Leibniz talks of corporeal substances in the 1680s but mostly drops talk of aggregate substances by monadology and focuses on indivisible simple substances - the monads. The soul is the substance that gives the brain, or in fact whole body, real individuality. Where I think he goes wrong is like everyone else, in assuming that there is only one such encompassing substance per creature. Otherwise I think he is remarkably close to target. RESPONSE: Everybody has trouble with L's lack of definition of what he means by substance. One commentator on L says that he still doesn't understand what L means by substance. I like this definition, substance= entity: entity /'entity/Noun 1. A thing with distinct and independent existence. 2. (too vague) Existence; being: entity and nonentity. where 1 is closest to what L means by substance. Elsewhere he and Russell define a substance as a complete concept, so we are not talking things here, we are talking about an idea, a concept, that can stand alone (is independent). By independent I think one must use the double aspect theory of mind, meaning that it has an independent function. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-aspect_theory BTW the double aspect theory of mind, widely acceptable to neuroscience, is also the closest you can get to L's understanding, because the function does not directly cause the brain's operation nor does brain's operation directly cause the function. There is not a causal link, simply a bridge, between the two. Now, having said that, each monad must by definition have a soul (its identity). And you can have monads within monads since you can have functions within functions. So you can have a man as the outer monad, within that body and mind monads, each having a soul, and within body the nervous system monads (both voluntary and involuntary and so forth). Not sure how this all links up with the body at present. - Roger Clough Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 4/6/2013 http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: NDE's Proved Real?
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: this is an article about research published in PLoS ONE, a peer-reviewed journal with a high impact factor ( 4). I confess I've never heard of PLoS ONE, but maybe that is just my a reflection of my ignorance, so I looked up the top 10 most cited (respected) journals in the field of Neuroscience and Behavior and this is what I got: 1 Nature 2 Science 3 Neuron 4 Nature Neuroscience 5 PNAS 6 Journal of Neuroscience 7 Annals of Neurology 8 Brain 9 Biological Psychiatry 10 Cerebral Cortex Dear me PLoS ONE doesn't seem to be there, but maybe its on the list of overall most cited journals. 1 Journal of Biological Chemistry 2 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 3 Nature 4 Science 5 Physical Review Letters 6 Cell 7 J. American Chemical Society 8 Physical Review 9 Journal of Immunology 10 New England Journal of Medicine Not there either. Top 10 Physics journals maybe? 1 Science 2 Nature 3 Physical Review Letters 4 Nuclear Physics 5 PNAS 6 Physics Letters 7 Physical Review D 8 Europ. Physical J. C 9 Applied Physics Letters 10 Nuclear Fusion Nope. How about Chemistry? 1 Nature 2 Science 3 PNAS 4 Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 5 J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 6 Analytical Chemistry 7 J. Medicinal Chemistry 8 Electrophoresis 9 Chemistry-European J. 10 J. Combinatorial Chem. I still don't see PLoS ONE but let me know when any of the above journals publishes something about NDE. Nobel laureates have published there. Did they say anything of importance there? A Nobel laureate once sent me a note of little consequence, so what? with a high impact factor ( 4). And for whatever its worth Nature has a impact factor of 31 and Physiological Reviews of 37; and if a more advanced and detailed ranking method is used that makes use of recursion and gives more weight to citations from higher weight journals than lower ones (for example, I'm sure PLoS ONE has cited Nature many times but I'll bet Nature has seldom if ever cited PLoS ONE) then Nature is the highest rank journal in the world with a 51.15 follow by Science with a 47.72. And you're bragging about a 4? It meets all of your requirements for scientific respectability. Nobody, absolutely nobody would publish in PLoS ONE if they could publish in Nature or Science, but they can't because those journals recognize junk science when they see it; and they won't even publish articles from past Nobel Prize winners unless they have something new and important to say. PLoS ONE is a legitimate scientific journal. That has never published anything important. The problem with this incredible claim meme is that there is no way to objectively measure how incredible a claim is. It's just an euphemism for the status quo. It is not at all unreasonable to demand a very very high level of proof before believing a experimental result that if correct would mean that thousands of experiments performed over the last couple of centuries were incorrect. I invite you to pause for a second and notice how religious you are about Science with a capital S. Wow, calling a guy known for not liking religion religious! Never heard that one before, at least not before the sixth grade. Except for consciousness, of course. How do you explain that one? (still waiting for your TOE, btw) If I had a TOE I'd be writing my Nobel Prize acceptance speech right now and not be blabbing on the Everything list; and a good honest I don't know is a far preferable answer to a question than a bullshit response. if so then you should accept the following bet: If Science or Nature or Physical Review Letters publishes a positive article about life after death before April 5 2014 I will give you $1000, if none of them do you only have to give me $100. Do we have a bet? Notice that if you make the bet less arbitrary, let's say any respectable journal with a high impact factor and articles authored by Nobel laureates, I would already have won. Well if you're that confident then this is a simple no risk way for you to make $1000, hey I'm giving you 10 to 1 odds it's easy money! So are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
The world is in the brain
Fingelkurts, A., Fingelkurts, A., and Neves, C. (2010). “Natural World Physical, Brain Operational, and Mind Phenomenal Space-Time”. *Physics of Life Reviews* 7(2): 195-249. http://scireprints.lu.lv/141/1/Fingelkurts_Space-time_in_Physics_brain_and_mind.pdf “We would like to discuss the hypothesis that via the brain operational space-time the mind subjective space-time is connected to otherwise distant physical space-time reality.” See Fig 11 where the phenomenal world is in the brain. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The world is in the brain
I like that diagram, and I think its a step in the right direction... but... it does not explain why phenomenal consciousness should be considered to resemble space-time. It really doesn't. To the contrary, spatiotemporal memories merge seamlessly with imaginary places and times, or non-places and non-times. When we are sequestered from public interactions, we lose spatial and temporal continuity as daydream dissolves into dream and realism dissipates. If they took the diagram and twisted the top hemisphere 90 degrees... hmm. maybe I will give that a try... Thanks, Craig On Saturday, April 6, 2013 1:45:12 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Fingelkurts, A., Fingelkurts, A., and Neves, C. (2010). “Natural World Physical, Brain Operational, and Mind Phenomenal Space-Time”. *Physics of Life Reviews* 7(2): 195-249. http://scireprints.lu.lv/141/1/Fingelkurts_Space-time_in_Physics_brain_and_mind.pdf “We would like to discuss the hypothesis that via the brain operational space-time the mind subjective space-time is connected to otherwise distant physical space-time reality.” See Fig 11 where the phenomenal world is in the brain. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The world is in the brain
On 4/6/2013 10:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Fingelkurts, A., Fingelkurts, A., and Neves, C. (2010). “Natural World Physical, Brain Operational, and Mind Phenomenal Space-Time”. *Physics of Life Reviews* 7(2): 195-249. http://scireprints.lu.lv/141/1/Fingelkurts_Space-time_in_Physics_brain_and_mind.pdf “We would like to discuss the hypothesis that via the brain operational space-time the mind subjective space-time is connected to otherwise distant physical space-time reality.” Which just says that you can think about things that are far way. See Fig 11 where the phenomenal world is in the brain. I don't see anything in this paper to support Craig's top down magic. They write: According to OA framework, the phenomenological architecture of consciousne ss and the brain’s operational architectonics correspond with one another; and they may also sh are ontological iden tity. If this holds true, then we can make another claim that by reproducing one architect ure we can observe the self-emergence of the other. Then, the problem of producing man-made “machine” consciousness is the problem of duplicating the whol e level of operational architect ure (with its inherent governing laws and mechanisms) found in the electromagne tic brain field, which di rectly constitutes the phenomenal level of brain organization. which, except for the assumption that only the electromagnetic field is relevant, sounds just like Bruno's explication of comp. 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 this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: NDE's Proved Real?
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 6:39 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: this is an article about research published in PLoS ONE, a peer-reviewed journal with a high impact factor ( 4). I confess I've never heard of PLoS ONE, but maybe that is just my a reflection of my ignorance, so I looked up the top 10 most cited (respected) journals in the field of Neuroscience and Behavior and this is what I got: 1 Nature 2 Science 3 Neuron 4 Nature Neuroscience 5 PNAS 6 Journal of Neuroscience 7 Annals of Neurology 8 Brain 9 Biological Psychiatry 10 Cerebral Cortex Dear me PLoS ONE doesn't seem to be there, but maybe its on the list of overall most cited journals. 1 Journal of Biological Chemistry 2 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 3 Nature 4 Science 5 Physical Review Letters 6 Cell 7 J. American Chemical Society 8 Physical Review 9 Journal of Immunology 10 New England Journal of Medicine Not there either. Top 10 Physics journals maybe? 1 Science 2 Nature 3 Physical Review Letters 4 Nuclear Physics 5 PNAS 6 Physics Letters 7 Physical Review D 8 Europ. Physical J. C 9 Applied Physics Letters 10 Nuclear Fusion Nope. How about Chemistry? 1 Nature 2 Science 3 PNAS 4 Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 5 J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 6 Analytical Chemistry 7 J. Medicinal Chemistry 8 Electrophoresis 9 Chemistry-European J. 10 J. Combinatorial Chem. I still don't see PLoS ONE but let me know when any of the above journals publishes something about NDE. Wow... So before you were saying: ...reading what some Bozo I've never heard of typed onto a obscure website... Now it turns out that the obscure website is a proper peer-reviews journal with a well above-median impact factor, where nobel laureates submit articles to. Not good enough because you did a bunch of searches on web of knowledge and discovered that it is not on the top ten. PLoS ONE is the best known journal of the open-access movement, that aims to make scientific results publicly accessible for free. It's very recent (2006), so it couldn't possible have built an impact factor or page rank or whatever to rank on top ten lists. It is, however, quite impressive: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/06/21/plosone-impact-factor-blessing-or-a-curse/ Last week PLoS ONE received its first impact factor — a stunning 4.351. This puts the open access journal in the top 25th percentile of ISI’s “Biology” category, a group of journals that sports a median impact factor of just 1.370. So impressive that Nature got a bit scared and created an open-access journal itself, called Scientific Reports. Nobel laureates have published there. Did they say anything of importance there? You be the judge: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001975 A Nobel laureate once sent me a note of little consequence, so what? ??? with a high impact factor ( 4). And for whatever its worth Nature has a impact factor of 31 and Physiological Reviews of 37; and if a more advanced and detailed ranking method is used that makes use of recursion and gives more weight to citations from higher weight journals than lower ones (for example, I'm sure PLoS ONE has cited Nature many times but I'll bet Nature has seldom if ever cited PLoS ONE) then Nature is the highest rank journal in the world with a 51.15 follow by Science with a 47.72. And you're bragging about a 4? Degree distributions in citation graphs follow power laws. It's a rich get richer dynamic, so a 4 is actually quite impressive. Doubly so for such a recent publication. It meets all of your requirements for scientific respectability. Nobody, absolutely nobody would publish in PLoS ONE if they could publish in Nature or Science, http://libraries.mit.edu/sites/scholarly/mit-open-access/open-access-at-mit/mit-open-access-policy/mit-faculty-open-access-policy-faq/ but they can't because those journals recognize junk science when they see it; and they won't even publish articles from past Nobel Prize winners unless they have something new and important to say. PLoS ONE is a legitimate scientific journal. That has never published anything important. How could you possibly know that? The problem with this incredible claim meme is that there is no way to objectively measure how incredible a claim is. It's just an euphemism for the status quo. It is not at all unreasonable to demand a very very high level of proof before believing a experimental result that if correct would mean that thousands of experiments performed over the last couple of centuries were incorrect. Agreed in that case. I invite you to pause for a second and notice how religious you are about Science with a capital S. Wow,
Re: The world is in the brain
On Saturday, April 6, 2013 6:46:37 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 4/6/2013 10:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Fingelkurts, A., Fingelkurts, A., and Neves, C. (2010). �Natural World Physical, Brain Operational, and Mind Phenomenal Space-Time�. *Physics of Life Reviews* 7(2): 195-249. http://scireprints.lu.lv/141/1/Fingelkurts_Space-time_in_Physics_brain_and_mind.pdf �We would like to discuss the hypothesis that via the brain operational space-time the mind subjective space-time is connected to otherwise distant physical space-time reality.� Which just says that you can think about things that are far way. See Fig 11 where the phenomenal world is in the brain. I don't see anything in this paper to support Craig's top down magic. (...and by top down magic you mean 'the ordinary capacities with which we participate in this very conversation.) Craig They write: According to OA framework, the phenomenological architecture of consciousne ss and the brain�s operational architectonics correspond with one another; and they may also sh are ontological iden tity. If this holds true, then we can make another claim that by reproducing one architect ure we can observe the self-emergence of the other. Then, the problem of producing man-made �machine� consciousness is the problem of duplicating the whol e level of operational architect ure (with its inherent governing laws and mechanisms) found in the electromagne tic brain field, which di rectly constitutes the phenomenal level of brain organization. which, except for the assumption that only the electromagnetic field is relevant, sounds just like Bruno's explication of comp. 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 this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The world is in the brain
Ok, here's my modified version of Fig 11 http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/33ost_diagram.jpg Craig On Saturday, April 6, 2013 1:45:12 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Fingelkurts, A., Fingelkurts, A., and Neves, C. (2010). “Natural World Physical, Brain Operational, and Mind Phenomenal Space-Time”. *Physics of Life Reviews* 7(2): 195-249. http://scireprints.lu.lv/141/1/Fingelkurts_Space-time_in_Physics_brain_and_mind.pdf “We would like to discuss the hypothesis that via the brain operational space-time the mind subjective space-time is connected to otherwise distant physical space-time reality.” See Fig 11 where the phenomenal world is in the brain. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
