On 21 Sep 2009, at 23:48, m.a. wrote:
And when pressed as to exactly how the Heisenberg compensators
worked, the spokesman replied, Very well, thank you.
:)
That's the problem. Star strek teleportation has been invented well
before Bennett Al. discovered quantum teleportation, and a
I've placed a compressed mbox file at
http://www.ibiblio.org/weidai/everything-archive/. Add everything.bz2 to
this path for the full URL. (I'm trying not to post the full URL directly so
the email addresses inside won't get harvested by web robots.) It should be
complete as of now. I'll
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Sep 2009, at 23:48, m.a. wrote:
*And when pressed as to exactly how the Heisenberg compensators
worked, the spokesman replied, Very well, thank you.*
:)
That's the problem. Star strek teleportation has been invented well
before Bennett Al. discovered
On 18 Sep, 00:26, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/17 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
Yep, and if the conclusion is ontological, the process that reaches it
is ontological.
Bruno thinks he can reach an ontological assumption starting with pure
maths.
But he can't.
On 18 Sep, 08:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I start from pure cognitive science. Saying yes to the doctor is not
pure math.
Saying yes to the doctor does not show
that i am being run on an immateial UD.
The existence of an immaterial UD needs
to be argued separately.
Great. Thank you!
mirek
Wei Dai wrote:
I've placed a compressed mbox file at
http://www.ibiblio.org/weidai/everything-archive/. Add everything.bz2 to
this path for the full URL. (I'm trying not to post the full URL directly so
the email addresses inside won't get harvested by web
It does show that you're nothing more than a program... which exists
(mathematically) independantly of any of it's instantiation.
Regards,
Quentin
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On 18 Sep, 08:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I start from pure cognitive science.
On 22 Sep, 12:07, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
It does show that you're nothing more than a program... which exists
(mathematically) independantly of any of it's instantiation.
Such existence is blatant Platonism.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
Mirek,
I found Outlook Express, but there are no FOR-MIREK files there.
marty a.
- Original Message -
From: Miroslav Dobsicek m.dobsi...@gmail.com
To:
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On 22 Sep, 12:07, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
It does show that you're nothing more than a program... which exists
(mathematically) independantly of any of it's instantiation.
Such existence is blatant Platonism.
No it's what a
On 22 Sep, 12:59, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On 22 Sep, 12:07, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
It does show that you're nothing more than a program... which exists
(mathematically) independantly of any of it's
Is mathematic dependant on human being from your point of view ?
That's what I understand.
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On 22 Sep, 12:59, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On 22 Sep, 12:07, Quentin Anciaux
On 22 Sep, 13:15, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Is mathematic dependant on human being from your point of view ?
That's what I understand.
Yes, exactly.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On 22 Sep, 14:37, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
But surely what is 'literally' the case depends critically on one's
starting assumptions. If one starts with a theoretical commitment to
the primacy of the physical, then the status
On 22 Sep 2009, at 10:50, Flammarion wrote:
No he doesn't. His arguments have to assume Platonism as
well as CTM.
CTM needs Church thesis (to define the C of CTM). This requires
Arithmetical Realism, that is the belief that classical logic can be
applied in the number realm. (and there
On 22 Sep 2009, at 10:57, Flammarion wrote:
On 18 Sep, 08:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I start from pure cognitive science. Saying yes to the doctor is
not
pure math.
Saying yes to the doctor does not show
that i am being run on an immateial UD.
That is why I use a
On 22 Sep, 15:10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Sep 2009, at 10:50, Flammarion wrote:
No he doesn't. His arguments have to assume Platonism as
well as CTM.
CTM needs Church thesis (to define the C of CTM). This requires
Arithmetical Realism, that is the belief that
On 22 Sep 2009, at 08:37, Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Sep 2009, at 23:48, m.a. wrote:
*And when pressed as to exactly how the Heisenberg compensators
worked, the spokesman replied, Very well, thank you.*
:)
That's the problem. Star strek teleportation has been
On 22 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote:
You have said nothing about the seventh first steps, which does not
invoke the materiality issue. Any problem there?
Instead of linking [the pain I feel] at space-time (x,t) to [a
machine state] at space-time (x,t), we are obliged to associate
On 22 Sep, 16:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote:
You have said nothing about the seventh first steps, which does not
invoke the materiality issue. Any problem there?
Instead of linking [the pain I feel] at space-time (x,t) to [a
On 22 Sep 2009, at 15:51, Flammarion wrote:
He goes on to conclude that I am being generated by an immaterial
UD. That is not possible if there are no immaterial entities.
You are in a third person way. If you are a program relatively to any
real world, you are 'executed' infinitely often
On 22 Sep, 16:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Sep 2009, at 15:51, Flammarion wrote:
He goes on to conclude that I am being generated by an immaterial
UD. That is not possible if there are no immaterial entities.
You are in a third person way.
That is still not possible
On 22 Sep 2009, at 17:18, Flammarion wrote:
On 22 Sep, 16:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote:
You have said nothing about the seventh first steps, which does not
invoke the materiality issue. Any problem there?
Instead of linking [the
On 22 Sep 2009, at 17:46, Flammarion wrote:
On 22 Sep, 16:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Sep 2009, at 15:51, Flammarion wrote:
He goes on to conclude that I am being generated by an immaterial
UD. That is not possible if there are no immaterial entities.
You are in a
On Sep 22, 4:46 pm, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
There is no problem attaching consc to PM.
What do you mean by this?
David
On 22 Sep, 16:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Sep 2009, at 15:51, Flammarion wrote:
He goes on to conclude that I am being generated
On 22 Sep, 16:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote:
You have said nothing about the seventh first steps, which does not
invoke the materiality issue. Any problem there?
Instead of linking [the pain I feel] at space-time (x,t) to [a
On 22 Sep, 17:16, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Sep 2009, at 17:46, Flammarion wrote:
On 22 Sep, 16:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Sep 2009, at 15:51, Flammarion wrote:
He goes on to conclude that I am being generated by an immaterial
UD. That is
On 22 Sep, 17:52, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 22, 4:46 pm, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
There is no problem attaching consc to PM.
What do you mean by this?
since PM notoriously has no intrinisc properties, there is nothing
to stop qualia being attached to
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On 22 Sep, 17:52, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 22, 4:46 pm, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
There is no problem attaching consc to PM.
What do you mean by this?
since PM notoriously has no intrinisc properties,
On 21 Sep, 08:58, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Sep 2009, at 02:49, Brent Meeker wrote:
So does being pure thought mean without a reference, i.e. a
fiction? As in Sherlock Holmes is a pure thought?
Consider the Many world theory of Everett, or the many histories of
On 22 Sep 2009, at 19:22, Flammarion wrote:
On 22 Sep, 17:16, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Sep 2009, at 17:46, Flammarion wrote:
On 22 Sep, 16:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Sep 2009, at 15:51, Flammarion wrote:
He goes on to conclude that I am
On 22 Sep, 19:08, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On 22 Sep, 17:52, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 22, 4:46 pm, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
There is no problem attaching consc to PM.
What do you
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Sep 2009, at 15:51, Flammarion wrote:
He goes on to conclude that I am being generated by an immaterial
UD. That is not possible if there are no immaterial entities.
You are in a third person way. If you are a program relatively to any
real world, you are
2009/9/22 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Sep 2009, at 15:51, Flammarion wrote:
He goes on to conclude that I am being generated by an immaterial
UD. That is not possible if there are no immaterial entities.
You are in a third person way. If you
On 1 Sep, 18:14, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/1 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
The level 0 has nothing that can be detected/tested if CTM is true
by a computational observer (us if CTM is true).
If a level 0 is part of the standard package of materialism,
it is
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On 1 Sep, 18:14, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/1 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
The level 0 has nothing that can be detected/tested if CTM is true
by a computational observer (us if CTM is true).
If a level 0 is
On 1 Sep, 18:35, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
What this shows is that CTM and comp are not different, but rather
that comp is CTM properly understood. Its 'supervention' on
virtualisation - i.e. a bottomless stack as perceived from inside -
means that demanding that it further
On 22 Sep, 21:29, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On 1 Sep, 18:14, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/1 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
The level 0 has nothing that can be detected/tested if CTM is true
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On 22 Sep, 21:29, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On 1 Sep, 18:14, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/1 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
The level 0 has
Sorry I wanted to write it does *add* nothing.
Level 0 is not part of the computation. And I still don't see how you can
relate physically running a program on a computer, a
2009/9/22 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On 22 Sep, 21:29, Quentin
Well little problem in gmail sorry.
So I do it again /o\
Sorry I wanted to write it does *add* nothing.
Level 0 is not part of the computation. And I still don't see how you can
relate physically running a program on a computer, and running it on an
abaccus, with a pen and a sheet of paper, in
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Sep 2009, at 23:48, m.a. wrote:
*And when pressed as to exactly
On 13 Sep, 17:51, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/11 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
I'm not sure I see what distinction you're making. If as you say the
realisation of computation in a physical system doesn't cause
consciousness, that would entail that no
On 22 Sep, 21:53, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Well little problem in gmail sorry.
So I do it again /o\
Sorry I wanted to write it does *add* nothing.
Level 0 is not part of the computation. And I still don't see how you can
relate physically running a program on a
On 22 Sep, 19:56, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
since PM notoriously has no intrinisc properties, there is nothing
to stop qualia being attached to it. If there were, that would
be a property.
In what might such attachment
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
So what did you mean the reader to conclude from your original
argument?
I wasn't trying to settle the whole issue in one go.
You concluded that the realisation of a computation doesn't
cause consciousness. But did you also mean to imply that
David Nyman wrote:
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
So what did you mean the reader to conclude from your original
argument?
I wasn't trying to settle the whole issue in one go.
You concluded that the realisation of a computation doesn't
cause consciousness. But did you also
On 22 Sep 2009, at 20:15, Flammarion wrote:
On 22 Sep, 19:08, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/22 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On 22 Sep, 17:52, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 22, 4:46 pm, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
There is no
48 matches
Mail list logo
