Bruno,
Why don't you make a course for dummies about this? (For example in
Second Life)
Evgenii
On 11.07.2011 16:01 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 11 Jul 2011, at 14:33, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.07.2011 17:32 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 10 Jul 2011, at 15:20, Craig
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:26:19PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
David Deutsch has an interesting discussion about this in his
Beginning of Infinity. He actually introduces several notions of
universality, one of which is universality of the numbering
system. Our numbering system is universal,
Hi Stephen,
I have to do a Part I now and get into Part II later on.
How does this causality flows in both directions work? I have a
model of something that has that kind of feature, but I am curious about
yours.
Subjectively we feel, (and see, hear, remember, understand) that we
can
On 11 Jul 2011, at 20:08, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2011/7/11 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 7/10/2011 8:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You confuse perhaps with Schmidhuber's position, or some digital
physicist (DP). But as I have explained many times here that this
position does not work.
On 09 Jul 2011, at 04:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You assumptions are not enough clear so I never know if you talk of
what is or of what seems to be.
I'm trying for 'what seems to be what is',
OK. But what is your assumption?
since what is isn't
knowable
In which theory. I think that a
Part II
What is your source of that information?
About human tetrachromats?
http://www.klab.caltech.edu/cns186/papers/Jameson01.pdf
Everything else is just my hypothesis.
To suspect that ... is
to bet that ... is true. How different is that from what Bruno is
talking about with the Yes,
Craig, I wonder what you'd think of Chalmers' Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia,
Dancing Qualia argument at http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html which to me
makes a strong argument for organizational invariance, which says physical
systems organized the same way should produce the same qualia, so
On 11 Jul 2011, at 23:57, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying.
Computer chips don't behave in the same way though.
That is just a question of choice of level of description. Unless you
believe in substantial infinite souls.
Not sure what you mean in
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Not sure what the cogito has to do with the presumption of the
necessity of color. Omnipotence solves all problems by definition,
doesn't it? I'm just using it as an example to show that it's
ridiculous to think that
Thanks, I always seem to like Chalmers perspectives. In this case I
think that the hypothesis of physics I'm working from changes how I
see this argument compared to how I would have a couple years ago. My
thought now is that although organizational invariance is valid,
molecular structure is part
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 15:50:12 -0700
Subject: Re: Bruno's blasphemy.
From: whatsons...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Thanks, I always seem to like Chalmers perspectives. In this case I
think that the hypothesis of physics I'm working from changes how I
see this
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 6:10 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
**
On 7/12/2011 2:30 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Not sure what the cogito has to do with the presumption of the
necessity of color. Omnipotence
Oh, yeah I would agree with you if you are talking real world live
healthy human bodies then they are going to have a human experience.
In a hypothetical, you could not know whether a person was a zombie or
not for sure, just because subjectivity is airtight, but mechanically
there is no way to
13 matches
Mail list logo
