Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

[Martin Abramson]

My original question was about copying memories between identical carbon
atoms. How does that work with DNA molecules? Are they composed of carbon
atoms?

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:37 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:08 PM Martin Abramson 
> wrote:
>
> > *How do they replicate themselves with the exact same memory engrams as
>> before? Thanks for the response. m.a.*
>>
>
> The exact mechanism depends on the specific example, computers have many
> different ways to duplicate information. In the case of DNA the double
> helix unravels and splits down the middle so you have 2 single helix
> molecules, but each helix still contains as much information as the
> original double helix because the 4 bases in the helix is what carries the
> information and Adenine only binds with Thymine and Cytosine only binds
> with Guanine. So each single helix can grab free bases floating around and
> start to grow, and pretty soon you have 2 identical double helix molecules
> where there was only one before.
>
>  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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

[Martin Abramson]

How do they replicate themselves with the exact same memory engrams as
before? Thanks for the response. m.a.

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:28 AM John Clark  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:39 AM Martin Abramson 
> wrote:
>
> >"Anything with the capacity to change will do and that's why one carbon
>> atom is a good as another."  Please explain.   m.a.
>>
>
> Science can not tell the difference between one carbon atom and another
> (if they are of the same isotope), good thing too because the carbon atoms
> that make up your brain now are not the same ones that were in it last
> year. So carbon atoms don't have your name scratched on them, the thing
> that makes you be you is the way those carbon atoms are arranged.
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

[Martin Abramson]

"Anything with the capacity to change will do and that's why one carbon
atom is a good as another."  Please explain.   m.a.

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:52 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:05 AM Philip Thrift 
> wrote:
>
> > *What in matter is not simulatable in arithmetic is experience.*
>>
>
> That's just a specific example of a more general concept, change. If you
> have an experience you have changed, you're different than if you did not
> have the experience.  Matter can change, arithmetic can't.
>
> > *Matter has experientiality, not mere informationality. *
>>
>
> I don't see the distinction, information describes a change in matter, an
> experience needs a change and matter is the only known thing that can
> change.
>
> *> This runs counter to most current consciousness science,*
>>
>
> There is intelligence science but there is no such thing as consciousness
> science, at least none that I've heard of.
>
>
>> *> There are 3 or 4 consciousness science conferences in 2019.*
>>
>
> And I would bet money not one of them will produced anything new about 
> consciousness,
> although no doubt there will be 6.02*10^23 consciousness theories
> presented, each one as good (or bad) as the other and all of them
> untestable and impossible to falsify.
>
>
>> > *A purely informational world could be emulated in arithmetic.*
>>
>
> Arithmetic never changes in time or space so it can't emulate anything
> without the help of something that can change, and that can only mean
> matter. Anything with the capacity to change will do and that's why one
> carbon atom is a good as another.
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

[Martin Abramson]

Consciousness is a program. It explores whatever entity it finds itself
within and becomes that creature's awareness of the world. For humans it
becomes the identity or soul which responds to anything that affects the
organism. It can be uploaded into a data bank but otherwise it dissipates
with death.

On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 7:49 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 7:22 PM Philip Thrift 
> wrote:
>
> *> By "experience", philosophers (like Galen Strawson, Philip Goff) mean
>> that which you have within yourself right now: the awareness that* [...]
>>
>
> Awareness? But awareness is just another word for consciousness, so when
> you say  "*It's that experience (not just information) that needs
> processing to produc**e consciousness" *you're saying that to produce
> consciousness you must process consciousness. I don't find that very
> helpful.
>
>> > I assume I can be outsmarted by Watson on Jeopardy!
>>
>
> Then Watson't intelligence isn't very pseudo.
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The hard problem of matter

[Martin Abramson]

I already published this elsewhere.


On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:22 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 10/23/2018 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> On 23 Oct 2018, at 04:30, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/22/2018 6:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>> The mathematical reality has noting to do with languages, except that
> languages are needed if machine/people want to share the results of their
> exploration.
> >> So how do you prove theorems without a language?
> > Of course, proving a theorem requires a theory, and a language. I was
> saying (see the quote) that the *arithmetical reality* does not require a
> language.
> >
> > The arithmetical reality does not require a language more than dinosaurs
> needed the word “dinosaur” to exist. The prime character of 17 does not
> need a mathematician to assert it, or to think about.
> >
> > To prove a theorem requires a theory, which requires a language.  We can
> only ope that our theory is in relation with truth, but the truth of 17 is
> prime, assuming it true,  does not need a proof to be true. A proof is
> neither necessary, nor sufficient. The arithmetical reality is independent
> of the big-bang. It is more plausible than an event like the big-bang
> requires some part of the arithmetical reality.
>
> But you are basing our shared reality in what is provable, which is
> therefore dependent on having language.  Right?
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The hard problem of matter

[Martin Abramson]

Consciousness is IDENTITY like a fingerprint or voice print. Every
consciousness is unique but each needs something to be conscious OF like a
human body or perhaps a larger (virtual?) program (hologram?) It can be
stored on a database. That's as far as I've got.

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:22 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 10/23/2018 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> On 23 Oct 2018, at 04:30, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/22/2018 6:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>> The mathematical reality has noting to do with languages, except that
> languages are needed if machine/people want to share the results of their
> exploration.
> >> So how do you prove theorems without a language?
> > Of course, proving a theorem requires a theory, and a language. I was
> saying (see the quote) that the *arithmetical reality* does not require a
> language.
> >
> > The arithmetical reality does not require a language more than dinosaurs
> needed the word “dinosaur” to exist. The prime character of 17 does not
> need a mathematician to assert it, or to think about.
> >
> > To prove a theorem requires a theory, which requires a language.  We can
> only ope that our theory is in relation with truth, but the truth of 17 is
> prime, assuming it true,  does not need a proof to be true. A proof is
> neither necessary, nor sufficient. The arithmetical reality is independent
> of the big-bang. It is more plausible than an event like the big-bang
> requires some part of the arithmetical reality.
>
> But you are basing our shared reality in what is provable, which is
> therefore dependent on having language.  Right?
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The codical-material universe

[Martin Abramson]

Are you saying that galaxies etc. moving away  ftl  are not moving relative
to spacetime because spacetime is expanding at the same scale factor? Is
the universe, as it expands, creating vast new amounts of spacetime or just
stretching existing spacetime thinner and thinner? Are there any theories
as to the limits of spacetime that can be created? Could spacetime be like
a soap bubble that bursts when it reaches a certain elastic limit? Are
these dumb questions? Sorry, I'm imposing on your patience. Thanks for
replying.

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:53 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> I said *stuff* (galaxies, galaxy clusters) was moving away faster than
> light, but not relative to the spacetime it's embedded in.
>
> Brent
>
> On 9/7/2018 6:46 AM, Martin Abramson wrote:
>
> Thanks Brent. You say the space is growing faster than light in a sense
> but not relative to spacetime. How can space not be relative to spacetime?
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 12:49 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>> The expansion of the universe is not a speed.  It's not even measured in
>> the units of speed.  It's a dimensionless scale  factor as a function of
>> time.  So if the scale factor increases by 0.1% over some time interval,
>> say a year, the stuff that was 10 lightyears away will now be 10.01
>> lightyears away. Something that was 1000 lightyears away will now be 1001
>> lightyears away.  So in a year it got to be a lightyear further away.  Is
>> it going at the speed of light?  No.  The space between us and it just got
>> bigger.  So in a sense it's "going as fast as light", but not relative to
>> it's spacetime.  Something that was 2000 lightyears away is now 2002
>> lightyears away.  It's moved 2 lightyears away in one year.   Is it "going
>> faster than light"?  in a sense, but not relative to spacetime.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> On 9/6/2018 7:21 PM, Martin Abramson wrote:
>>
>> I'm confused about the universe expanding faster than light speed. Anyone
>> care to explain or cite a ref? Thanks, m.a.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Philip Thrift 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 2:48:53 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:47:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6 Sep 2018, at 17:04, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 4:23:23 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5 Sep 2018, at 18:58, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 9:12:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5 Sep 2018, at 11:54, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 2:28:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2 Sep 2018, at 21:32, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 8:15:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 30 Aug 2018, at 01:04, Philip Thrift 
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 4:55:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you have some evidence for doubting CT?  It seems that it's
>>>>>>>>>> essentially a definition of digital computation.  So you could
>>>>>>>>>> offer
>>>>>>>>>> some other definition, but it would need to be realisable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Brent
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/29/2018 12:12 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> > also thought by some in what I call the UCNC gang
>>

Re: The codical-material universe

[Martin Abramson]

Thanks Brent. You say the space is growing faster than light in a sense but
not relative to spacetime. How can space not be relative to spacetime?

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 12:49 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> The expansion of the universe is not a speed.  It's not even measured in
> the units of speed.  It's a dimensionless scale  factor as a function of
> time.  So if the scale factor increases by 0.1% over some time interval,
> say a year, the stuff that was 10 lightyears away will now be 10.01
> lightyears away. Something that was 1000 lightyears away will now be 1001
> lightyears away.  So in a year it got to be a lightyear further away.  Is
> it going at the speed of light?  No.  The space between us and it just got
> bigger.  So in a sense it's "going as fast as light", but not relative to
> it's spacetime.  Something that was 2000 lightyears away is now 2002
> lightyears away.  It's moved 2 lightyears away in one year.   Is it "going
> faster than light"?  in a sense, but not relative to spacetime.
>
> Brent
>
> On 9/6/2018 7:21 PM, Martin Abramson wrote:
>
> I'm confused about the universe expanding faster than light speed. Anyone
> care to explain or cite a ref? Thanks, m.a.
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Philip Thrift 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 2:48:53 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:47:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6 Sep 2018, at 17:04, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 4:23:23 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5 Sep 2018, at 18:58, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 9:12:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5 Sep 2018, at 11:54, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 2:28:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2 Sep 2018, at 21:32, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 8:15:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 30 Aug 2018, at 01:04, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 4:55:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have some evidence for doubting CT?  It seems that it's
>>>>>>>>> essentially a definition of digital computation.  So you could
>>>>>>>>> offer
>>>>>>>>> some other definition, but it would need to be realisable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Brent
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/29/2018 12:12 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > also thought by some in what I call the UCNC gang
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also thought WHAT?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In terms of theory, Joel David  Hamkins  @*JDHamkins*
>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/JDHamkins>   (the set-theorist now at Oxford)
>>>>>>>> considers infinite-time TMs to be a part of "computation":
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://jdh.hamkins.org/ittms/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If computation is the fundamental "substrate" of nature, and  ITTMs
>>>>>>>> are "natural" extensions of TMs, there is no reason to exclude ITTMs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have explained in this list, and in my papers, that Church’s
>>>>>>>> thesis (with Mechanism) entails that matter and nature are 

Re: The codical-material universe

[Martin Abramson]

I'm confused about the universe expanding faster than light speed. Anyone
care to explain or cite a ref? Thanks, m.a.

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 4:01 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

>
>
> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 2:48:53 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:47:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6 Sep 2018, at 17:04, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 4:23:23 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 5 Sep 2018, at 18:58, Philip Thrift  wrote:



 On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 9:12:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
 wrote:
>
>
> On 5 Sep 2018, at 11:54, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 2:28:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2 Sep 2018, at 21:32, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 8:15:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 30 Aug 2018, at 01:04, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 4:55:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

 Do you have some evidence for doubting CT?  It seems that it's
 essentially a definition of digital computation.  So you could
 offer
 some other definition, but it would need to be realisable.

 Brent

 On 8/29/2018 12:12 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
 > also thought by some in what I call the UCNC gang

 Also thought WHAT?

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In terms of theory, Joel David  Hamkins  @*JDHamkins*
>>>    (the set-theorist now at Oxford)
>>> considers infinite-time TMs to be a part of "computation":
>>>
>>>
>>> http://jdh.hamkins.org/ittms/
>>>
>>> If computation is the fundamental "substrate" of nature, and  ITTMs
>>> are "natural" extensions of TMs, there is no reason to exclude ITTMs.
>>>
>>> I have explained in this list, and in my papers, that Church’s
>>> thesis (with Mechanism) entails that matter and nature are non 
>>> computable.
>>> Elementary arithmetic realise/emulate all computations, and physics is
>>> reduced into a statistic on all computations, which is not something a
>>> priori computable. If mechanism is refuted some day, it will be by 
>>> showing
>>> that nature is “too much computable”, not by showing that nature is not
>>> computable. Mechanism in cognitive science is incompatible with 
>>> Mechanism
>>> in physics. Now, it could be that the only not computable things is 
>>> just a
>>> random oracle, but this does not change the class of computable 
>>> function.
>>> It would change the class of polynomial-time computable function, as we
>>> suspect nature do, but that confirms mechanism which predicts this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But what does the presence of ITTMs  mean for the CT thesis? Whether
>>> ITTMs are "realizable" remains to be seen.
>>>
>>>
>>> The CT thesis identifies human intuitively computable functions with
>>> functions programmable on a computer. It is a priori neutral on what the
>>> physical reality can compute. With mechanism, CT entails the existence 
>>> of
>>> non emulable phenomena by computer “in real time”.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In terms of practice, UCNC people think that computers made with
>>> non-standard materials, e.g. "live" bioware produced by synthetic 
>>> biology,
>>> could have novel computational (behavioural) abilities not equivalently
>>> replicable in a simulation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Quantum computer can emulate some piece of matter more quickly than
>>> a classical computer. But that was a prediction of mechanism. You can 
>>> read
>>> the basic explanation in my paper here if interested.
>>>
>>>
>>> B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th
>>> International System Administration and Network Engineering Conference,
>>> SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 2004.
>>>
>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
>>> (sane04)
>>>
>>>
>>> The key notion if the “first person indeterminacy” which is just the
>>> fact that if we are machine, we are duplicable, and duplicated in
>>> arithmetic, and whatever we predict about our first person experience is
>>> indeterminate on the set of all computations (in arithmetic) which go
>>> through our local and actual state of mind (that is: an infinity).
>>> Physicalism is refuted with mechanism, and becomes a branch of machine
>>> psychology, or better machine theology (the study of the non provable 
>>> true
>>> propositions).
>>>
>>> I am just know writing a post on why Church’s 

Re: Films I think people on this forum might like

[Martin Abramson]

Yes, the 4 superstars performing and explaining some stunning illusions all
done with brilliant fx.


On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 5:41 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Now_You_See_Me_%28film%29 ?

 that was quite fun, a bit incredulity stretching...


 On 2 May 2014 01:14, Martin Abramson martinabrams...@gmail.com wrote:

 How about:  NOW YOU SEE ME   ?


 On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:14 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 One I've mentioned ad nauseum - Memento.

 There is also The Prestige, which I would definitely recommend.

 To avoid spoilers, I won't go into detail about why these films might
 appeal, but they both address issues mentioned on this list (at least
 tangentially, and in a fictional manner).

 I might also mention Chronocrimes for its portrayal of a block univese.

 Sadly no one seems to have filmed October the First is Too Late
 although the 10-episode epic Doctor Who story The War Games comes close
 in some respects. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Who story
 was inspired by Hoyle's novel, which I think appeared about 3 years
 beforehand if I remember correctly. I would semi-recommend this (but you
 have to remember that it was made in black and white, for viewing as a
 weekly serial in 1969...)

  --
 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.
 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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 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.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Films I think people on this forum might like

[Martin Abramson]

How about:  NOW YOU SEE ME   ?


On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 1:14 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 One I've mentioned ad nauseum - Memento.

 There is also The Prestige, which I would definitely recommend.

 To avoid spoilers, I won't go into detail about why these films might
 appeal, but they both address issues mentioned on this list (at least
 tangentially, and in a fictional manner).

 I might also mention Chronocrimes for its portrayal of a block univese.

 Sadly no one seems to have filmed October the First is Too Late although
 the 10-episode epic Doctor Who story The War Games comes close in some
 respects. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Who story was
 inspired by Hoyle's novel, which I think appeared about 3 years beforehand
 if I remember correctly. I would semi-recommend this (but you have to
 remember that it was made in black and white, for viewing as a weekly
 serial in 1969...)

  --
 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.
 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.