Peter Jones writes:
> Errmm.. if by "recover" we are able to replay them as
> conscious (re)experiences. The memory-trace need
> only contain time-stamps indicating the order
> and timing of the contents of the experience. The
> total structure of time-stamped-stored-experience
> can co-exist si
David Nyman writes:
> I think we're in agreement, Stathis, but I'm trying to focus on a
> problem, and what I think is a non-trivial aspect of evolved brain
> functionality that would be required to overcome it. Of course, I agree
> with you that each aspect of the experience '.falls perfect
David Nyman wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
>
> > > Peter, when you said that the physical might be 'relations all the way
> > > down', and I asked you what would you find if you went 'all the way
> > > down', you replied 'primary matter'. IOW, you posit primary matter as a
> > > 'bare substrate' to which are
David Nyman wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
> > Assuming that everything necessary for consciousness at time can be
> > contained
> > in a 0-duration snapshot at time t. However, If consciousness
> > supervenes on a process,
> > however that assumption is not true.
>
> As you know I've been attempting
1Z wrote:
> Assuming that everything necessary for consciousness at time can be
> contained
> in a 0-duration snapshot at time t. However, If consciousness
> supervenes on a process,
> however that assumption is not true.
As you know I've been attempting to give an account of this. I concur
t
1Z wrote:
> > Peter, when you said that the physical might be 'relations all the way
> > down', and I asked you what would you find if you went 'all the way
> > down', you replied 'primary matter'. IOW, you posit primary matter as a
> > 'bare substrate' to which are attached whatever properties t
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter Jones writes:
>
> > > > > Here is another thought experiment. You are watching an object moving
> > > > > against a
> > > > > stationary background at a velocity of 10 m/s. Suddenly, the object
> > > > > seems to instantly
> > > > > jump 10 metres in the direc
Peter Jones writes:
> > > > Here is another thought experiment. You are watching an object moving
> > > > against a
> > > > stationary background at a velocity of 10 m/s. Suddenly, the object
> > > > seems to instantly
> > > > jump 10 metres in the direction of motion, and then continues as be
David Nyman wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
>
> > > > Where are these machines?
> > >
> > >
> > > Where the numbers are.
> >
> > Which is...? Presumably the answer is not
> > "on blackboards" or "in the minds of mathematicians".
> >
> > Apparently its not a "magical realm" either.
>
> Peter, when you said tha
Brent Meeker wrote:
> It's the "should" that worries me. If consciousness is just some digital
> information process that can exist in Platonia, then the underlying
> continuity of brain processes is irrelevant. But the relevance of brain
> processes is the point in question. When it is assu
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 29-oct.-06, à 15:27, 1Z a écrit :
>
> >
> > You do need your UD to exist, or your argument that
> > I am being generated by it is merely hypothetical.
>
> I agree. I need "UD exists", and that is a theorem of PA. I was saying
> that I don't need "UD" exists in some magic
1Z wrote:
> > > Where are these machines?
> >
> >
> > Where the numbers are.
>
> Which is...? Presumably the answer is not
> "on blackboards" or "in the minds of mathematicians".
>
> Apparently its not a "magical realm" either.
Peter, when you said that the physical might be 'relations all the w
Le 29-oct.-06, à 15:27, 1Z a écrit :
>
> You do need your UD to exist, or your argument that
> I am being generated by it is merely hypothetical.
I agree. I need "UD exists", and that is a theorem of PA. I was saying
that I don't need "UD" exists in some magical realm.
>
>> In that sense I a
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 29-oct.-06, à 12:21, 1Z a écrit :
>
>
> > That's in the sense of abstract truth, not in the sense
> > of real existence, then. (Remember: anti-Platonists
> > agree that "2+2=4" is a necessary apriori truth,
> > they just disagree that "2" exists).
>
>
>
>
> I don't need
Le 29-oct.-06, à 12:21, 1Z a écrit :
> That's in the sense of abstract truth, not in the sense
> of real existence, then. (Remember: anti-Platonists
> agree that "2+2=4" is a necessary apriori truth,
> they just disagree that "2" exists).
I don't need to have that "2" exists.
In that sens
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 27-oct.-06, à 15:58, 1Z a écrit :
>
> >
> > If numbers aren't real at all they cannot generate reality
> > (ITSIAR).
>
>
> You beg the question. Numbers are not physically real
> does not entails
> that numbers don't exist at all, unless you define "real" by "physical
>
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 27-oct.-06, à 00:40, 1Z a écrit :
>
> >>> Tom Caylor:
> >>> Mathematical logic is richer than that. This is what Bruno is
> >>> saying,
> >>> that the math path points toward Rome. And it is no more scary (a la
> >>> possible spirits lurking under/in every rock) than t
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 26-oct.-06, à 23:35, 1Z a écrit :
>
>
> > Mathematical logic can't conjure up existential conclusions
> > without making existential assumptions.
>
>
>
> If Aristotle was right on the question of the existence of some
> physical or natural *primary* matter, then indeed m
Le 26-oct.-06, à 23:35, 1Z a écrit :
> Mathematical logic can't conjure up existential conclusions
> without making existential assumptions.
If Aristotle was right on the question of the existence of some
physical or natural *primary* matter, then indeed mathematical logic
wouldn't conjure
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 27-oct.-06, à 16:51, 1Z a écrit :
>
> >
> >
> > Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> >> Le 26-oct.-06, à 18:02, 1Z a écrit :
> >>
> >>> Measure is a lot more difficult in MMW. It has to be
> >>> deprived by apriori necessity. Do you have
> >>> a solution?
> >>
> >> A good candidat
Le 27-oct.-06, à 00:40, 1Z a écrit :
>>> Tom Caylor:
>>> Mathematical logic is richer than that. This is what Bruno is
>>> saying,
>>> that the math path points toward Rome. And it is no more scary (a la
>>> possible spirits lurking under/in every rock) than the matter path.
>>> Limiting math
Le 27-oct.-06, à 16:51, 1Z a écrit :
>
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> Le 26-oct.-06, à 18:02, 1Z a écrit :
>>
>>> Measure is a lot more difficult in MMW. It has to be
>>> deprived by apriori necessity. Do you have
>>> a solution?
>>
>> A good candidate for apriori necessity (and possibility) is
Le 27-oct.-06, à 16:06, 1Z a écrit :
> Principally I mean "in the physical universe, or in Plato's heaven".
>
> Bruno always sounds like a Platonist, but he keeps denying he is one.
Quite the contrary. I vindicate that I am even a plotinist, or a
neoplatonist if you prefer.
I just don't shar
Le 27-oct.-06, à 15:58, 1Z a écrit :
>
> If numbers aren't real at all they cannot generate reality
> (ITSIAR).
You beg the question. Numbers are not physically real does not entails
that numbers don't exist at all, unless you define "real" by "physical
real".
The question you should ask is:
Le 27-oct.-06, à 13:04, Quentin Anciaux a écrit :
>
> Hi Stathis,
>
> Le Vendredi 27 Octobre 2006 12:16, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
>> Here is another thought experiment. You are watching an object moving
>> against a stationary background at a velocity of 10 m/s. Suddenly, the
>> object seem
25 matches
Mail list logo
