On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1676
>
> "As stated above, blindsight is seen clinically as a contrast between
> a lack of declarative knowledge about a stimulus and a high rate of
> correct answers to questions about the stimulus
On Oct 12, 2011, at 9:44 PM, Craig Weinberg
wrote:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1676
"As stated above, blindsight is seen clinically as a contrast between
a lack of declarative knowledge about a stimulus and a high rate of
correct answers to questions about the stimulus (1).
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 4:17 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>The model of a neuron does not include the inputs. A
>> larger model of a network of neurons includes inputs and outputs from
>> all the neurons in the network but does not include external inputs.
>
> Without any external inputs, and witho
On 10/12/2011 7:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1676
"As stated above, blindsight is seen clinically as a contrast between
a lack of declarative knowledge about a stimulus and a high rate of
correct answers to questions about the stimulus (1). People suffe
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1676
"As stated above, blindsight is seen clinically as a contrast between
a lack of declarative knowledge about a stimulus and a high rate of
correct answers to questions about the stimulus (1). People suffering
from blindsight claim to see nothing, and
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 02:54:01PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 11 Oct 2011, at 22:14, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:03:42PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>With COMP, and via your UDA, our observed universe is selected from
> >>>the set of all inf
terren wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> That reminds me an argument of Bruno in Lewis Carroll's "Sylvie and
>> Bruno",
>> about Spinach. If I remember well.
>> Something like: '---don't make me *love* spinach because thats really
>> the
>> worst possible whic
terren wrote:
>
> Hey Benjay,
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:11 PM, benjayk
> wrote:
>> Honestly, I won't bother to study a theory in much depth that I hold to
>> be
>> utterly implausible at the start.
>
> I have to wonder why you're putting so much energy into refuting an
> idea you feel to
I am omitting a lot, honestly most of the stuff isn't that relevant for what
I really want to express. I guess I still talk too much.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> Explaining
>> consciousness in the sense you mean it (explain it *from* something)
>> is
>> nonsense, as consciousness is already req
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> That reminds me an argument of Bruno in Lewis Carroll's "Sylvie and Bruno",
> about Spinach. If I remember well.
> Something like: '---don't make me *love* spinach because thats really the
> worst possible which can happen for someone who *h
On 12 Oct 2011, at 03:01, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:11 PM, benjayk
wrote:
That's a nice strategy to be "right", that's for sure. "You just
don't
understand it, study more".
The ideas are understandable if you're willing to depart from your
preferred way of viewing
On 11 Oct 2011, at 22:14, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:03:42PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With COMP, and via your UDA, our observed universe is selected from
the set of all infinite strings (which I call descriptions in my
book).
My non observed "future"; or comput
On 11 Oct 2011, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/11/2011 9:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My non observed "future"; or computational extensions, is selected,
making the comp physics explainable in term of statistics on
computations. This leads to general physical laws invariant for all
observ
13 matches
Mail list logo
