Aaron,
>
> Consciousness is *not "outside"* of reality. The reality you perceive is
>> "implemented" *within *consciousness.
>
>
> I bolded 3 words above. Please reconcile your apparent immediate
> self-contradiction.
>
>
Hmm -- What is the self-contradiction that you see here? I don't see it
I think SP means ~ like "Simple Powerful" or the like. Anyway, it has
no particular bearing on the theory, I guess...
thanks for the comment Boris. I have to read his more detailed paper
(the appendix here is superficial). I did note the match/miss...
On 9/10/15, martin biehl wrote:
> I was
I was gonna ask you what SP stands for, but the guy doesn't even say it in
the paper. Not that it is really important but it drives me nuts...
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Boris Kazachenko
wrote:
> He's been at it at least since 1995:
> http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF03038313,
He's been at it at least since 1995:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF03038313,
I e-mailed him once back then. I agree with him on many generalities,
except for "probabilistic" part, but I don't think it's anything novel.
My main problem with these sequence-matching approaches is that
I wanted to leave a few comments regarding justcamel's latest posts.
Actually this response is made for anyone on the mailing list who wants
to read it. I've gotten a few emails from people here trying to share
their unified theories of consciousness and physics with me, this post
is for them too.
>
> If you implement say a Hamiltonian solver within FPGA ... is the FPGA
> outside of the solver?
>
> Is the information representing the WoW world outside of the WoW world?
>
> I don't see a self-contradiction? Apparently you prefer to talk about
> semantics instead of exploring your consciousnes
Dear Ed
My comment was aimed at Ben's paper. It has relevance for a notion I have of
the existence of a quantum-based superstate system, which may connect the
reasoning universe with the unreasoning universe. I have an idea that such a
superstate system (a pure-quantum machine), may play a role
On 2015-09-09 10:51, Bill Hibbard wrote:
Very good. That is selection pressure on plants
to affect humans and other animals.
I am interested in possible selection pressure
on human brains to be able to occasionally have
a very changed (high) perspective on the world
by ingesting plant chemicals
I was reading Wolff's SP Theory of Intelligence, main themes:
compression
pattern-matching
more symbolic, less neural netish
minimum-mathematics
probablistic
I was wondering if anybody had comments on this work?? The paper is
quite readable.
It looks like this link was published today; my copy
If you implement say a Hamiltonian solver within FPGA ... is the FPGA
outside of the solver?
Is the information representing the WoW world outside of the WoW world?
I don't see a self-contradiction? Apparently you prefer to talk about
semantics instead of exploring your consciousness ... ;-)
>
> I stated several times that you do not need drugs. Also, entheogens do not
> expand your consciousness ... your consciousness is already "fully
> expanded" ... they disable your local intellect and ego (the things which
> distract you and prevent you from interacting with the larger reality) an
I stated several times that you do not need drugs. Also, entheogens do
not expand your consciousness ... your consciousness is already "fully
expanded" ... they disable your local intellect and ego (the things
which distract you and prevent you from interacting with the larger
reality) and thus
This reminds me of that joke about the mathematician and the fence. (
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/joke/3.htm) You are just redefining
what is "outside". But if you were pitted against someone who took physical
action while you work through your "free" consciousness, the one who took
physic
p.s.: That's if I said: Being aware of the data structure behind WoW and
having the required skills to access/alter said data structure (I don't
know what kind of database/storage system WoW features) has no influence
on WoW. It's just ridiculous.
You wouldn't believe a single word if I told y
On 09.09.2015 19:57, Aaron Hosford wrote:
p.s.: It will be really, really interesting to see what an AGI
system will do ... considering that it will definitely understand
all of this (evolution of consciousness, our purpose, etc.) much
better than most of us.
Most of our e
>
> p.s.: It will be really, really interesting to see what an AGI system will
> do ... considering that it will definitely understand all of this
> (evolution of consciousness, our purpose, etc.) much better than most of us.
>
> Most of our expectations and extrapolations within the context of AGI
Dear Nanograte Knowledge Technologies,
(Prescript: I am cutting lines short because for some reason Gmail
is not word wrapping this morning.)
Since my theory says that computational awareness is the awareness of
information required by the laws of physics, and since most, if not all,
laws of phys
Very good. That is selection pressure on plants
to affect humans and other animals.
I am interested in possible selection pressure
on human brains to be able to occasionally have
a very changed (high) perspective on the world
by ingesting plant chemicals. The ability to
get high at times chosen b
p.s.: It will be really, really interesting to see what an AGI system
will do ... considering that it will definitely understand all of this
(evolution of consciousness, our purpose, etc.) much better than most of us.
Most of our expectations and extrapolations within the context of AGI
are pr
A Zen Master would probably tell you that your local, physical reality
already represents the environment which optimally alters your
consciousness. Learning takes a lot of time ... especially as we are
living within a culture which mostly cherishes materialism, status and
ego ... i.e. a cultur
20 matches
Mail list logo
