Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-04-30 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/4/30 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com: I see no contradiction in a noticeable gap in consciousness. Whether noticing such a gap depends on having some theory of the world or is intrinsic seems to be the question. You would notice a gap

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-04-30 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/4/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: Putnam and Searle use the Rock argument to suggest that computationalism is false: they consider it absurd that any conscious computation supervenes on any physical activity (or equivalently no physical activity,

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-04-30 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Apr 2009, at 15:49, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/4/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: Putnam and Searle use the Rock argument to suggest that computationalism is false: they consider it absurd that any conscious computation supervenes on any

Re: Quantum suicide and immortality

2009-05-10 Thread Brent Meeker
ZeroSum wrote: The Wiki article Quantum suicide and immortality (http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality) states: Also, the philosopher David Lewis, in How Many Lives Has Schrödinger's Cat?, remarked that in the vast majority of the worlds in which an immortal

Re: Victor Korotkikh

2009-05-14 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: Ronald, On 14 May 2009, at 13:19, Ronald (ronaldheld) wrote: Can you explain your Physics statement in more detail, which I can understand? UDA *is* the detailed explanation of that physics statement. So it would be simpler if you could tell me at which step

Re: No MWI

2009-05-14 Thread Brent Meeker
Colin Hales wrote: Hi, When I read quantum mechanics and listen to those invested in the many places the mathematics leads, What strikes me is the extent to which the starting point is mathematics. That is, the entire discussion is couched as if the mathematics is defining what there is,

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-05-17 Thread Brent Meeker
Kelly Harmon wrote: I think your discussing the functional aspects of consciousness. AKA, the easy problems of consciousness. The question of how human behavior is produced. My question was what is the source of phenomenal consciousness. What is the absolute minimum requirement which

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-05-17 Thread Brent Meeker
Kelly Harmon wrote: On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Generally I don't think that what we experience is necessarily caused by physical systems. I think that sometimes physical systems assume configurations that shadow, or represent, our

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-05-19 Thread Brent Meeker
Kelly Harmon wrote: ... So I think the possibility (conceivability?) of conscious computer simulations is what throws a kink into this line of thought. No, that's why I wrote ...relative to an environment. In Moravec's thought experiment the consciousness is relative to simulation.

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-05-22 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 May 2009, at 18:25, Jason Resch wrote: ... Do you believe if we create a computer in this physical universe that it could be made conscious, But a computer is never conscious, nor is a brain. Only a person is conscious, and a computer or a brain can

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-05-23 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 May 2009, at 06:39, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 May 2009, at 18:25, Jason Resch wrote: ... Do you believe if we create a computer in this physical universe that it could be made conscious, But a computer is never

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-05-23 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 May 2009, at 09:08, Brent Meeker wrote: But why? Why not RA without induction? Is it necessary that there be infinite schema? Since you phrase your answer as I am willing... is it a matter of your intuition or is it a matter of degree of consciousness

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-05-24 Thread Brent Meeker
Kelly wrote: On May 23, 12:54 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Either of these ideas is definite enough that they could actually be implemented (in contrast to many philosophical ideas about consciousness). Once you had implemented the ideas, how would you

Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-02 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: ... A set is entirely defined by its elements. Put in another way, we will say that two sets are equal if they have the same elements. Exercise 6. Let S be the set {0, 1, 45} and let M be the set described by {45, 0, 1}. Is it true or false that S is equal to M?

Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-03 Thread Brent Meeker
Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2009/6/3 Torgny Tholerus tor...@dsv.su.se: Bruno Marchal skrev: On 02 Jun 2009, at 19:43, Torgny Tholerus wrote: Bruno Marchal skrev: 4) The set of all natural numbers. This set is hard to define, yet I hope you agree we can describe it

Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-03 Thread Brent Meeker
Brian Tenneson wrote: How do you know that there is no biggest number? Have you examined all the natural numbers? How do you prove that there is no biggest number? In my opinion those are excellent questions. I will attempt to answer them. The intended audience of my

Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-04 Thread Brent Meeker
I've never seen an ultrafinitist definition of the natural numbers. The usual definition via Peano's axioms obviously rules out there being a largest number. I would suppose that an ultrafinitist definition of the natural numbers would be something like seen in a computer (which is

Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-04 Thread Brent Meeker
Torgny Tholerus wrote: Brian Tenneson skrev: This is a denial of the axiom of infinity. I think a foundational set theorist might agree that it is impossible to -construct- an infinite set from scratch which is why they use the axiom of infinity. People are free to deny axioms, of

Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe

2009-06-04 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Ronald, On 02 Jun 2009, at 16:45, ronaldheld wrote: Bruno: Since I program in Fortran, I am uncertain how to interpret things. I was alluding to old, and less old, disputes again programmers, about which programming language to prefer. It is a

Re: Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe

2009-06-04 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: ... Bruno Marchal wrote: The whole point of logic is to consider the Peano's axioms as a mathematical object itself, which is studied mathematically in the usual informal (yet rigorous and typically mathematica) way. PA, and PA+GOLDBACH are different mathematical

Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-06 Thread Brent Meeker
Torgny Tholerus wrote: Jesse Mazer skrev: Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 08:33:47 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries Brian Tenneson skrev: How can BIGGEST+1 be a natural number but not belong

Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-06 Thread Brent Meeker
Jesse Mazer wrote: Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 21:17:03 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries Jesse Mazer skrev: Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 16:48:21 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To:

Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries 2

2009-06-06 Thread Brent Meeker
m.a. wrote: *Bruno,* * I've encountered some difficulty with the examples below. You say that in extension describes exhaustion or quasi-exhaustion. And you give the example: **B = {3, 6, 9, 12, ... 99}.* * Then you define in intension with exactly the same type

Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-06 Thread Brent Meeker
Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2009/6/6 Torgny Tholerus tor...@dsv.su.se: Jesse Mazer skrev: Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 16:48:21 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries Jesse Mazer skrev: Here

Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries 2

2009-06-06 Thread Brent Meeker
m.a. wrote: *Okay, so is it true to say that things written in EXTENSION are never in formula style but are translated into formulas when we put them into INTENSION form? You can see that my difficulty with math arises from an inability to master even the simplest definitions.

Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-09 Thread Brent Meeker
Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2009/6/9 Torgny Tholerus tor...@dsv.su.se: Jesse Mazer skrev: Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 21:17:03 +0200 From: tor...@dsv.su.se To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries My philosophical argument is about

Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-09 Thread Brent Meeker
Quentin Anciaux wrote: You have to explain why the exception is needed in the first place... The rule is true until the rule is not true anymore, ok but you have to explain for what sufficiently large N the successor function would yield next 0 and why or to add that N and that exception to

Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-09 Thread Brent Meeker
Jesse Mazer wrote: Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 12:54:16 -0700 From: meeke...@dslextreme.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries You don't justify definitions. How would you justify Peano's axioms as being the right ones? You are

Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-09 Thread Brent Meeker
Jesse Mazer wrote: Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:22:10 -0700 From: meeke...@dslextreme.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries Jesse Mazer wrote: Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 12:54:16 -0700 From: meeke...@dslextreme.com To:

Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-10 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2009, at 02:20, Brent Meeker wrote: I think Godel's imcompleteness theorem already implies that there must be non-unique extensions, (e.g. maybe you can add an axiom either that there are infinitely many pairs of primes differing by two or the negative

Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries

2009-06-11 Thread Brent Meeker
A. Wolf wrote: As I said, you can formalize the notion of soundness in Set Theory. But this adds nothing, except that it shows that the notion of soundness has the same level of complexity that usual analytical or topological set theoretical notions. So you can also say that unsound

Re: When is this?

2009-06-15 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/6/16 David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com: Forgive me in advance if this has been covered adequately before in the list, but the following occurs to me with respect to 'Bostrom' style assessments of where I should expect my 'current' OM to be situated with

Re: Non unique Universe

2009-07-02 Thread Brent Meeker
John Mikes wrote: Brian, I started to read the text and found the 1st sentence: /In modern cosmology, a / /multiverse is defined to be a collection of possible physical universes/ that pissed me off: 'possible' in our today's sense includes many 'impossibilities' in the sense of a

Re: The seven step series

2009-07-03 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: ... Due to Dirac, in Quantum Mechanics, I tend to believe that brackets are and . parentheses are ( and ). I call { and } accolades, but perhaps they are called bracket. The terms are not important as far as we understand each other. How would you call [ and ] ?

Re: Non unique Universe

2009-07-03 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jul 2009, at 21:37, Brent Meeker wrote: John Mikes wrote: Brian, I started to read the text and found the 1st sentence: /In modern cosmology, a / /multiverse is defined to be a collection of possible physical universes/ that pissed me off

Re: Dreams and Machines

2009-07-19 Thread Brent Meeker
. Brent Meeker It seems to me that maybe consciousness is actually very simple. It is just a group of platonic ideals, like red, that are related to each other by a point of view: I like red, or I see a red sphere. Maybe what is complicated is constructing or identifying a causal structure

Re: Dreams and Machines

2009-07-20 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: Brent, I intend to reply more directly to your post soon, as I think there's a lot to be said in response. But in the meantime: So I just finished reading David Deutsch's The Fabric of Reality, and I'm curious what you (Brent, Bruno, and anyone else) make of the following

Re: The seven step series

2009-07-21 Thread Brent Meeker
Each binary string of length n has two possible continuations of length n+1, one of them by appending a 0 and one of them by appending a 1. So to get all binary strings of length n+1 take each string of length n, make two copies, to one copy append a 0 and to the other copy append a 1.

Re: The seven step series

2009-07-21 Thread Brent Meeker
of length 3. Brent m.a. wrote: *Thanks Brent,* * Could you supply some illustrative examples?* * marty a.* ** - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker meeke

Re: Dreams and Machines

2009-07-22 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: Brent, So my first draft addressed many of the points you made, but it that email got too big and sprawling I thought. So I've focused on what seems to me like the key passage from your post. If you think there was some other point that I should have addressed, let me

Re: The seven step series

2009-07-22 Thread Brent Meeker
m.a. wrote: Hi Brent, I really appreciate the help and I hate to impose on your patience but...(see below) - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything

Re: Dreams and Machines

2009-07-22 Thread Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote: 2009/7/22 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: explanatory redundancy. Hence I'm a monist (or a non-dualist) who - given the singular incorrigibility of first-person 'experiential reality' - concludes that though whatever underlies remains forever *unknowable* it must

Re: The seven step series

2009-07-22 Thread Brent Meeker
m.a. wrote: *Going a step further... (see below)* ** - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 12:57 PM Subject: Re

Re: Dreams and Machines

2009-07-22 Thread Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote: 2009/7/23 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com: If I understand you correctly, this is similar to the explication of I by Thomas Metzinger in his book The Ego Tunnel. He expresses it as the self being transparent. We look *through* it but not *at* it, and necessarily so

Re: Dreams and Machines

2009-07-22 Thread Brent Meeker
Brian Tenneson wrote: Hi Brent, You are asserting monism. But the One, the ur-stuff, is ineffable/unknowable. So when we place ourselves in the world it is by making distinctions within the unity. To become distinct from the background (the One) is what it means to be RITSIAR.

Re: Seven Step Series

2009-07-23 Thread Brent Meeker
m.a. wrote: Hi Bruno, Yes, this is all clear to me. But when I try to put it into practice, confusion reigns. (See bottom of page.) By the way, because I'm printing out your lessons and often need to refer back to specific ones, it becomes confusing when you append

Re: Information entropy of physical fundamental constants

2009-07-24 Thread Brent Meeker
nothing to it. ;-) You miss the key word arbitrary, it is simple to show that the number of irrational numbers which can be expressed/encoded with ZERO entropy equals to number of rational numbers (sqrt(2) is one of such examples). --sb On Jul 23, 4:30 pm, Brent Meeker meeke

Re: Dreaming On

2009-07-27 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Jul 2009, at 16:52, David Nyman wrote: Thanks to everyone who responded to my initial sally on dreams and machines. Naturally I have arrogated the right to plagiarise your helpful comments in what follows, which is an aphoristic synthesis of my understanding

Re: Dreaming On

2009-07-27 Thread Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote: 2009/7/27 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com That's a bit of a straw man you're refuting. I've never heard anyone claim that the mind is the brain. The materialist claim is that the mind is what the brain does, i.e. the mind is a process. That's implicit in COMP

Re: Seven Step Series

2009-07-28 Thread Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote: 2009/7/28 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: You could say, for example, at any point to go further you would need a deeper grasp of x, but for now, it has this or that role or function in the overall story - or something like that. I'd be very grateful - and attentive.

Re: Seven Step Series

2009-07-28 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Jul 2009, at 13:38, David Nyman wrote: ... be conceived for this purpose to be 'sequentially resolving' each 'OM-programme-step'? Indeed my understanding is that this dovetailed sequentiality is actually a key conceptual element of COMP. Not sure to see

Re: Dreaming On

2009-07-29 Thread Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote: ... In my various ramblings, I've tried to cut the whole Gordian knot of what can coherently be said to exist, and within this the whole debate on materialism, panpsychism, mind-body hard problems, causal closure of the physical, etc. by a simple expediency which then

Re: Seven Step Series

2009-07-29 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Jul 2009, at 20:06, Brent Meeker wrote: David Nyman wrote: 2009/7/28 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: snip David Nyman wrote: However I have a wacky intuition: despite the platonic criterion of co-existence, 1-person experience of the temporal dynamism (i.e

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-01 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: A further thought: On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 4:34 PM, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote: Of course a computational narrative may turn out not to be the way to go, but I strongly suspect that we still await a revolution in - well not physics, but..what? being-science?

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-01 Thread Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote: ... Now, you don't of course have to accept COMP. But if you want to be a physical realist, it means you can only hang on to the computational explanation of mind by eliminating the mind itself from reality. Personally, not being committed to such an explanation, this

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-05 Thread Brent Meeker
Colin Hales wrote: Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed refutation of computationalism. It's going through peer review at the moment. The basic problem that most people fall foul of is the conflation of 'physics-as-computation' with the type of computation that

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-06 Thread Brent Meeker
Colin Hales wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Colin Hales wrote: Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed refutation of computationalism. It's going through peer review at the moment. The basic problem that most people fall foul of is the conflation of 'physics

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-06 Thread Brent Meeker
Colin Hales wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Colin Hales wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Colin Hales wrote: Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed refutation of computationalism. It's going through peer review at the moment. The basic problem

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-07 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: Very important post, Peter. We are progressing. On 06 Aug 2009, at 19:09, 1Z wrote: On 31 July, 18:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 31 Jul 2009, at 18:05, 1Z wrote: If it isn;t RITSIAR, it cannot be generating me. Mathematical proofs only prove

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-08 Thread Brent Meeker
rexallen...@gmail.com wrote: Against Physics Let me go through my full chain of reasoning here, before I draw my conclusion: ... So physicalism in fact offers no advantage over just asserting that our conscious experience just exists. If you suffer epileptic seizures seeing a

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-11 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I don't see the theory. What do you ask us to agree on, if only for the sake of the argument. So, while the contents of my experience...the things that I'm conscious OF are complex and

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-12 Thread Brent Meeker
Colin Hales wrote: Hi, I guess I am pretty much over the need for any 'ism whatever. I can re-classify my ideas in terms of an 'ism, but that process tells me nothing extra and offers no extra empirical clue. I think I can classify fairly succinctly the difference between approaches:

Re: The seven step series

2009-08-13 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: ... 4) Key questions for the sequel, on which you can meditate: - is there a bijection between N and NxN? (NxN = the cartesian product of N with N) - is there a bijection between N and N^N? You're making me think, Bruno. :-) A bijection

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-13 Thread Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote: Colin's recent interesting (not to say impassioned!) posts have - yet again - made me realise the fundamental weakness of my grasp of some of the discussions that involve Turing emulation - or emulability - on the list. So I offer myself once more as lead ignoramus in

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-13 Thread Brent Meeker
Colin Hales wrote: Here's a nice pic to use in discussion from GEB. The map for a formal system (a tree). A formal system could not draw this picture. Where's your proof of this assertion? Brent --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-13 Thread Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote: 2009/8/14 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com: A good summary, David. However, there are some other possibilities. Physics as now conceived is based on real and complex numbers. It can only be approximated digitally. QM supposes true randomness, which Turing machines

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-14 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: As such, I feel that it is reasonable to say that conscious experience itself is uncaused and fundamental. This has no meaning for me. It is like saying don't ask. Hm. You don't at

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-14 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: The living brain and the executing computer program both just represent the contents of my conscious experience, in the same way that a map represents the actual terrain. When you set

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-14 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi David, This is a nice post, but you are still putting the horse before the cart. Now I can see that you have not yet grasp the main UDA point. Hope you have no problem with being frank, and a bit undiplomatical, OK? On 13 Aug 2009, at 23:01, David Nyman wrote:

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-14 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: Brent, On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Uncaused things can't be explained. They just are. Didn't anyone ever explain arithmetic or geometry to you? Not every explanation needs to be a causal one. Well, I think that's what

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-15 Thread Brent Meeker
Rex Allen wrote: Brent and 1Z (the twins...a dynamic duo of blunt skepticism): On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Well, I think that's what I'm saying. Causal explanations are not really explanations, because you can never trace the causal chain

Re: Against Physics

2009-08-16 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Aug 2009, at 09:11, Rex Allen wrote: ... Uncaused things can't be explained. They just are. So what causes the complexity and structure of the things that I am conscious of? Nothing. That's just the way my experience is. ? I can't accept this, because I am

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote: Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within physical space. So the UDA is based on Plat., not the other way round. Are you saying that without platonism, the square root of 2 does not exist? Prime

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Brent Meeker
Jesse Mazer wrote: 1Z wrote: But those space-time configuration are themselves described by mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers described or explain. Irrelevant. Described by does not mean is This leads to major difficulties, even before

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-17 Thread Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote: 2009/8/17 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com: Yep. I have no problem with any of that Really? Let's see then. The paraphrase condition means, for example, that instead of adopting a statement like unicorns have one horn as a true statement about reality and thus

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Aug 2009, at 19:28, Flammarion wrote: On 17 Aug, 11:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote: Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within physical space. So the UDA is based on Plat., not the other

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Aug 2009, at 22:41, Flammarion wrote: On 17 Aug, 14:46, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: 1Z wrote: But those space-time configuration are themselves described by mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers described or explain. But

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Brent Meeker
Jesse Mazer wrote: Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:37:02 -0700 Subject: Re: Emulation and Stuff From: peterdjo...@yahoo.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 18 Aug, 01:53, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: Peter Jones wrote: On 17 Aug, 14:46,

Re: no-go for the penrose-hameroff proposal

2009-08-18 Thread Brent Meeker
Mirek Dobsicek wrote: Somebody might be interested in .. PHYSICAL REVIEW E 80, 021912 2009 Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction proposal for human consciousness is not biologically feasible It has long been noted that microtubles are ubiquitous in the cells of other

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Aug 2009, at 22:43, Flammarion wrote: On 18 Aug, 11:25, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 18 Aug 2009, at 10:55, Flammarion wrote: Any physcial theory is distinguished from an Everythingis theory by maintaining the contingent existence of only

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-18 Thread Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote: On 19 Aug, 00:20, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Note that I have never said that matter does not exist. I have no doubt it exists. I am just saying that matter cannot be primitive, assuming comp. Matter is more or less the border of the ignorance of

Re: OFF LIST Re: Emulation and Stuff - The Ross Model of our Universe

2009-08-18 Thread Brent Meeker
Colin Hales wrote: Hi, Can you please send a .PDF or a .DOC I can't read .DOCX and I can't upgrade my PC to read ituni rules... :-( regards Colin Hales Download OpenOffice. It's free. It'll read .doc and .docx files and it will save in .doc and .pdf (but it won't import .pdf).

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Brent Meeker
Flammarion wrote: On 18 Aug, 18:26, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: Flammarion wrote: Single-universe thinking is a different game from everythingism. It is not about explaining everything from logical first priciples. It accepts contingency as the price paid

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-19 Thread Brent Meeker
Flammarion wrote: On 19 Aug, 01:51, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote: David Nyman wrote: On 19 Aug, 00:20, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Note that I have never said that matter does not exist. I have no doubt it exists. I am just saying that matter cannot

Re: Emulation and Stuff

2009-08-21 Thread Brent Meeker
Flammarion wrote: ... We might call these three notions of existence Q-existence, M- existence and C-existence for short. My argument with you has been that even if one wishes to postulate a single universe, M-existence is an unnecessary middleman and doesn't even seem well-defined, all we

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-21 Thread Brent Meeker
Flammarion wrote: On 15 Aug, 02:40, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/14 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com: I think need to take a hard line on RITSIAR. I feel that the key lies in what Bruno terms the certainty of the ontological first person (OFP): i.e. the sine qua non

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-22 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Aug 2009, at 22:01, Brent Meeker wrote: Flammarion wrote: Do you think that if you scanned my brain right down to the atomic level, you still wouldn't have captured all the information? That's an interesting question and one that I think relates

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-22 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Aug 2009, at 20:06, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: If the context, or even the whole physical universe, is needed, it is part of the generalized brain. Either the generalized brain is Turing emulable, and the reversal reasoning will proceed

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-22 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/8/22 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com: That's an interesting question and one that I think relates to the importance of context. A scan of your brain would capture all the information in the Shannon/Boltzman sense, i.e. it would determine which

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-24 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/8/24 David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com: In the example of the alien brain, as has been pointed out, the context of meaning is to be discovered only in the its own local embodiment of its history and current experience. In Stathis' example of *our*

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-24 Thread Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote: 2009/8/24 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com: 2009/8/24 David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com: In the example of the alien brain, as has been pointed out, the context of meaning is to be discovered only in the its own local embodiment of its history and current

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-24 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Aug 2009, at 21:10, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Aug 2009, at 20:06, Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: If the context, or even the whole physical universe, is needed, it is part of the generalized brain. Either the generalized

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-24 Thread Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote: On 24 Aug, 16:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: But you see Brent, here you confirm that materialist are religious in the way they try to explain, or explain away the mind body problem. I can imagine that your consciousness supervene on something uncomputable in

A Purely Arithmetical, yet...

2009-08-24 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno, I would like to understand your arguments at a technical level, so I started reading your March 2007 paper. But I got kinda bogged down near the end of Section 2. Could you expand on the paragraph that begins with Let us define an arithmetical realisation R by a function which

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-25 Thread Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote: 2009/8/25 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: David, (and Stathis?) I appreciate David's 1,2,3, variations on the it's or our, but you just destroyed my position with I should perhaps emphasise that purely for the purposes of the argument I'm assuming brain = mind to be a

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-26 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/8/26 David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com: On 25 Aug, 14:32, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: Let's say the alien brain in its initial environment produced a certain output when it was presented with a certain input, such as a red light. The

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-26 Thread Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote: 2009/8/26 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com: With the example of the light, you alter the photoreceptors in the retina so that they respond the same way when to a blue light that they would have when exposed to a red light. Ah, so the alien has photoreceptors and

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-26 Thread Brent Meeker
David Nyman wrote: 2009/8/26 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com: I don't see that. I conjectured that with sufficient knowledge of the environment in which the alien functioned and input-outputs at the corresponding level, one could provide and account of the alien's experience. I

Re: Bayes Destroyed?

2009-08-27 Thread Brent Meeker
marc.geddes wrote: That which can be destroyed by the truth should be. -- P.C. Hodgell Today, among logicians, Bayesian Inference seems to be the new dogma for all encompassing theory of rationality. But I have different ideas, so I'm going to present an argument suggesting an

Re: Dreaming On

2009-08-27 Thread Brent Meeker
Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2009/8/26 David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com: 2009/8/26 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com: With the example of the light, you alter the photoreceptors in the retina so that they respond the same way when to a blue light that they would have when exposed to a red

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >