On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 05:27:33PM -0400, Jesse Mazer wrote:
I don't know what compiler optimization flags are, but if the trajectories
Compiler optimization flags tell the compiler to optimize generated code more
aggressively, which may even break your code, at a high optimization setting.
Brent Meeker writes:
[quoting Stathis Papaioannou]
In the case of the heart the
simpler artificial pump might be just as good, but in the case of a
brain,
the electrical activity of each and every neuron is intrinsically
important
in the final result.
That last seems extremely dubious.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 10:38:35PM -0700, George Levy wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The ionic gradients across cell membranes determine the transmembrane
potential and how close the neuron is to the voltage threshold which
will trigger an action potential by opening transmembrane ion
Hal Finney writes
Lee Corbin writes:
Hal Finney writes
Can we imagine a universe like ours, which follows exactly the
same natural laws, but where time doesn't really exist (in some
sense), where there is no actual causality?
You yourself have already provided the key example in
Dear Chris, I hope to
be able to convince you that the ideas that you express below do not yield a
coherent narrative. But you must make up your own mind. There are so many
assumptions being made that must be reconsidered... What is your
background?- Original Message - From:
"chris
[SPK]
Oh no, I am not a time denier. I am arguing that Change, no,
Becoming, is a Fundamental aspect of Existence and not Static Being.
...Try this idea: We do NOT exist in a single space-time manifold.
That structure is a collective illusion - but still a reality- that
results from the
I wrote:
And when they say the performance is variable, I think they're talking
about some measure of performance during a single execution of a given
program, not about repeating the execution of the same program multiple
times and finding variations from one run to another.
Looks like I
Tom: I guess I'll have to ponder this more. In general I am
uncomfortable with having terms like physics and
psychology/consciousness defined (redefined?) later on in an argument
rather than at the beginning.
Bruno: That is a little bit curious because in SANE I *exceptionally*
do give
Le 11-juil.-05, à 19:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Actually this particular quote seems to present consciousness as the
ontological counterpart to the epistemological fundamental
psychology, just as matter is considered the ontological counterpart
to epistemological fundamental physics.
Lee Corbin writes:
Perhaps you could address the biggest stumbling block that perhaps
I still have: continuity.
I'll even go out on a limb and suggest that *continuity* is really
what bothers a lot of people. A lot of us (e.g. Jesse Mazer) are
quite okay with, say, a program that uses the
Le 12-juil.-05, à 20:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Tom: My exception to your hypotheses was supposedly independent of
Church's thesis or arithmetic realism, but the objection was regarding
your definition of physics, which seems too narrow to me. But now I
am pondering your rebuttal of
Hal Finney wrote:
I imagine that multiple universes could exist, a la Schmidhuber's ensemble
or Tegmark's level 4 multiverse. Time does not play a special role in
the descriptions of these universes.
Doesn't Schmidhuber consider only universes that are the results of
computations? Can't we
Jesse Mazer writes:
Hal Finney wrote:
I imagine that multiple universes could exist, a la Schmidhuber's ensemble
or Tegmark's level 4 multiverse. Time does not play a special role in
the descriptions of these universes.
Doesn't Schmidhuber consider only universes that are the results of
Dear Tom,
I do not understand how you arrived at that conclusion! I am arguing
that Existence - the Dasein of Kant - is independent of space-time;
space-time is secondary. I would like to better undertand your idea being
as (roughly) the integral of change, and change as the derivative of
[SPK]
Oh no, I am not a time denier. I am arguing that Change, no,
Becoming, is a Fundamental aspect of Existence and not Static
Being.
...Try this idea: We do NOT exist in a single space-time manifold.
That structure is a collective illusion - but still a reality-
that results from the
15 matches
Mail list logo
