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:
*(A) Colin*
(a) There is a
2009/8/12 Colin Hales c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au:
My motivation to kill COMP is purely aimed at bring a halt to the delusion
of the AGI community that Turing-computing will ever create a mind. They are
throwing away $millions based on a false belief. Their expectations need to
be
On 12 Aug 2009, at 04:32, David Nyman wrote:
2009/8/11 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
Bruno, thanks for your detailed responses which I will peruse closely.
Meanwhile, I finally managed to locate on FOR an apparently coherent
summary of the MGA (which I understand to be the essence of
Colin,
We agree on the conclusion. We disagree on vocabulary, and on the
validity of your reasoning.
Let us call I-comp the usual indexical mechanism discussed in this
list (comp).
Let us call m-comp the thesis that there is a primitive natural
world, and that it can be described by a
On 11 Aug 2009, at 02:06, ronaldheld wrote:
I am behind, because I was away delivering Science talk to Star Trek
fans.
I am uncertain what to take away from this thread, and could use the
clarification.
I will think about it. It could help if you were a bit more specific.
As an aside,
2009/8/12 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
The solution then seems obviously to be to throw one or other of these
supposed causal principles out, i.e.:
1) either it is the case that consciousness simply supervenes on
particular physical activities whose computational status is
irrelevant;
On 12 Aug 2009, at 16:38, David Nyman wrote:
2009/8/12 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
The solution then seems obviously to be to throw one or other of
these
supposed causal principles out, i.e.:
1) either it is the case that consciousness simply supervenes on
particular physical
2009/8/12 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
I will not stickle on that point :)
Can we say that?
Sure - why be pointilleux about it?
Now, is the ONE a person? I still don't know if that make sense (in
machine's theology). Who knows?
I suspect we need to interview the One. Maybe Oprah?
D
Hi,
I'm from Milan.
I'm going to finish my studies in philosophy (of mind) and I'm looking
for some phd in philosophy of mind in cognitive (neuro)science...or
something that is interdisciplinary. I found some interesting phd in
Italy (at the university of In Milan, in Siena, in Turin in
On 11 Aug 2009, at 22:24, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
Well, A^B is the set of functions from B to A. By definition of set
exponentiation.
I'd just like to point out that Bruno in his previous post in the
seven
step serii made a small typo
A^B - the set of all functions from A to B.
It
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2009/8/12 Colin Hales c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au:
My motivation to kill COMP is purely aimed at bring a halt to the delusion
of the AGI community that Turing-computing will ever create a mind. They are
throwing away $millions based on a false belief. Their
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Colin,
We agree on the conclusion. We disagree on vocabulary, and on the
validity of your reasoning.
Let us call I-comp the usual indexical mechanism discussed in this
list (comp).
Let us call m-comp the thesis that there is a primitive natural
world, and that it
12 matches
Mail list logo
