Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 25-mars-06, à 19:17, 1Z a écrit :
>
> > > > > You will miss the consequences of the assumption. All science is based
> > > > > on implicit or explicit assumption, related to (non definable)
> > > > > world-views.
> > > > Almost all science is based on the implicit assump
peterdjones wrote:
>
> Georges Quénot wrote:
>> peterdjones wrote:
>>> Georges Quénot wrote:
peterdjones wrote:
> [...]
> I don't refuse them on the basis of prejudice, I refuse them
> on the basis of not matching my experience.
Your experience *is* a prejudice.
>>> Cela est
Le 25-mars-06, à 19:17, 1Z a écrit :
> That doesn't follow. An emulation of you must have some kind of
> functional
> equaivalence or isomomrphism, but that leaves it as a map, not as
> a territory. You can no more guarantee that your functional equivalent
> is conscious (not a Zombie) than you
Le 25-mars-06, à 19:10, 1Z a écrit :
> The
> Searlian point is that there is something about the actual, concrete
> non-abstract existence/occurence of real physical processes that
> explains the hard problems (IOW, "physics" in the sense of "territory",
> not "map").
Searles is notoriously inv
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 24-mars-06, à 16:31, 1Z a écrit :
>
> >
> >
> > Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> Le 20-mars-06, à 00:04, John M a écrit :
> >>
> >>
> >>> A Turing machine does nothing (by itself). Don't take
> >>> the power for granted. Something has to OPERATE it to
> >>> do anything.
> >>
>
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 24-mars-06, à 17:19, 1Z a écrit :
>
> > A materialist cannot possible be worse off in explaining mind that
> > a Mathematical Monist, sice he has at least one extra ingredient to
> > play with.
> > He is not obliged to deny that mind has anythign to do with
> > computat
Le 25-mars-06, à 03:39, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>>
>> I believe in relative measure and I think this is a key to resolve HP
>> universes "problem" (I quote problem because I don't see why it is
>> one after
>> all).
>
> What's "relative measure"? Do you mean the Born Rule. To retain it
> as a
Georges Quénot wrote:
> peterdjones wrote:
> >
> > Georges Quénot wrote:
> >> peterdjones wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>> I don't refuse them on the basis of prejudice, I refuse them
> >>> on the basis of not matching my experience.
> >> Your experience *is* a prejudice.
> >
> > Cela est faux.
>
> As se
I will comment asap, but first resend you message as you ask me to do.
John wrote:
Début du message réexpédié :
De: John M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 mars 2006 23:41:38 GMT+01:00
À: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Objet: Réexp : Posting error: Everything List
Répondre à: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Le 24-mars-06, à 15:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> Of course, we can't be sure when we close ourselves in from any
> explanation that is "meaningless".
> We can run but we cannot hide from the fact that we will always have to
> make assumptions that are without basis. Even when we close ours
Le 24-mars-06, à 16:31, 1Z a écrit :
>
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Le 20-mars-06, à 00:04, John M a écrit :
>>
>>
>>> A Turing machine does nothing (by itself). Don't take
>>> the power for granted. Something has to OPERATE it to
>>> do anything.
>>
>>
>> Why? How could a digital machine distin
Le 24-mars-06, à 17:19, 1Z a écrit :
> A materialist cannot possible be worse off in explaining mind that
> a Mathematical Monist, sice he has at least one extra ingredient to
> play with.
> He is not obliged to deny that mind has anythign to do with
> computation, but
> when he hits problems h
Le 24-mars-06, à 20:49, 1Z a écrit :
>
>
> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>> Le Vendredi 24 Mars 2006 20:38, 1Z a écrit :
>>> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
A quick point still :
You seem to have a problem with mathematical monism and reject it
due to
HP world... but HP world is not a conse
Le 25-mars-06, à 17:10, 1Z a écrit :
> Saying **that** measure emerges from a purely mathematical multiverse
> theory
> is very different from being able to say **how**.
The UDA reasoning shows why, if comp or weaker is true, such measure
must exist.
The interview of the lobian machine explai
Le 24-mars-06, à 19:36, 1Z a écrit :
> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>> Le Vendredi 24 Mars 2006 16:40, 1Z a écrit :
>>> No, I am not *spatially** inside a universe, becaue space is
>>> physics,.
>>> not maths ! The number 2 that features in the set {1,2,3} is exactly
>>> the same as the number 2 in t
peterdjones wrote:
>
> Georges Quénot wrote:
>> peterdjones wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> I don't refuse them on the basis of prejudice, I refuse them
>>> on the basis of not matching my experience.
>> Your experience *is* a prejudice.
>
> Cela est faux.
As seen from your viewpoint I guess it seems so.
Georges Quénot wrote:
> peterdjones wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > I don't refuse them on the basis of prejudice, I refuse them
> > on the basis of not matching my experience.
>
> Your experience *is* a prejudice.
Cela est faux.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> I believe in relative measure and I think this is a key to resolve HP
> universes "problem" (I quote problem because I don't see why it is one after
> all).
Saying **that** measure emerges from a purely mathematical multiverse
theory
is very different from being able to
Le 25-mars-06, à 00:51, George Levy a écrit :
>
> Dear members of the list, Bruno and those who understand G.
>
> I have read or rather tried to read Smullyan's book. His examples are
> totally fabricated. I will never meet the white knight in the island of
> liars and truthtellers.
Nor will a
Le 21-mars-06, à 02:50, Johnathan Corgan a écrit :
> Still, there is a certain appeal to shifting the question from "Why are
> we conscious?" to "Consciousness doesn't exist, so why do we so firmly
> believe that it does?"
What would it mean that "consciousness doesn't exist"? It is not just
20 matches
Mail list logo
