On 06 Feb 2012, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/6/2012 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Feb 2012, at 21:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/5/2012 8:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No. All universal numbers can interpret a number as a function on
quantities, or as properties on quantities, which
On 07 Feb 2012, at 07:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/6/2012 9:55 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/7/2012 05:08, meekerdb wrote:
while the other gives you a simple view, but it also tells you that
there's more than you can see. Some people seem bothered about this
'more' part, especially if it's not
On 06 Feb 2012, at 20:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/6/2012 9:03 AM, 1Z wrote:
There is also a conservation of information. It is
apparently industrictable.
Is there? if there is , it is a phsycial law, and AFAIK it is hotly
debated.
It's the same as the question of wave-function collapse.
On 06 Feb 2012, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 7:12 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com
wrote:
An agent in possession of free will is able to perform an action
that was possible to predict by nobody but the agent itself.
There are a number of things wrong with this:
On 07 Feb 2012, at 00:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 6, 10:37 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 05 Feb 2012, at 20:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm not lowering subst level at all, I'm saying that subst level
is an
indexical.
?
That's what you aren't getting about my
On 2/7/2012 06:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/6/2012 9:55 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/7/2012 05:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/6/2012 5:37 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/7/2012 00:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/6/2012 3:50 PM, acw wrote:
I'm not so sure to term ``body'' is as meaningful if we consider the
extremes which seem
If I’ve Googled “diabetes” for a friend or “date rape drugs” for a
mystery I’m writing, data aggregators assume those searches reflect my
own health and proclivities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/facebook-is-using-you.html
--
You received this message because you are
On 2/7/2012 06:15, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/6/2012 6:50 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/6/2012 06:25, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi ACW,
On 2/4/2012 1:53 PM, acw wrote:
snip
Before reading the UDA, I used to think that something like Tegmark's
solution would be general enough and sufficient, but now I
On Feb 6, 10:54 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The only understanding of Chinese going on is by those Chinese speakers
outside the room who are carrying on a one-sided conversation with a rule
book.
So you say,
On Feb 6, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
More seriously, in the chinese room experience, Searle's error can be
seen also as a confusion of level. If I can emulate Einstein brain,
I can answer all question you ask to Einstein,
You're assuming that a brain can be emulated in
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
But then why wouldn;t agents have knowledge of each others FW functions.
I can't answer that question because I don't know what FW functions are,
and forget functions I don't even know what you mean by FW.
Your action can be free as far as
On 2/7/2012 3:56 AM, acw wrote:
Well, Copenhagen doesn't even describe an underlying model, it's just a predictive
model, a don't ask what's going on model, thus while it will give you correct results,
it won't tell you what's really going on.
That assumes that something is 'really going on'.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you are proving that a computer in the position of the man has no
understanding then this thought experiment proves it.
How in hell would putting a computer in the position of the man prove
anything?? The man is just a very
On 06.02.2012 20:42 meekerdb said the following:
On 2/6/2012 9:03 AM, 1Z wrote:
There is also a conservation of information. It is
apparently industrictable.
Is there? if there is , it is a phsycial law, and AFAIK it is
hotly debated.
It's the same as the question of wave-function
On 06.02.2012 22:19 Russell Standish said the following:
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 08:20:53PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 05.02.2012 22:46 Russell Standish said the following:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 08:56:10PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
In this respect your question is actually nice, as
Russell,
This is circular - temperature is usually defined in terms of
entropy:
T^{-1} = dS/dE
This is wrong. The temperature is defined according to the Zeroth Law.
The Second Law just allows us to define the absolute temperature, but
the temperature as such is defined independently from
On 06.02.2012 21:10 meekerdb said the following:
On 2/6/2012 11:18 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 05.02.2012 22:33 Russell Standish said the following:
On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 07:28:47PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
The most funny it looks in the conclusion
p. 28(142) First, all notions of
2012/2/7 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Feb 6, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
More seriously, in the chinese room experience, Searle's error can be
seen also as a confusion of level. If I can emulate Einstein brain,
I can answer all question you ask to Einstein,
On 2/7/2012 11:04 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.02.2012 20:42 meekerdb said the following:
On 2/6/2012 9:03 AM, 1Z wrote:
There is also a conservation of information. It is
apparently industrictable.
Is there? if there is , it is a phsycial law, and AFAIK it is
hotly debated.
It's the
On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 08:15:10PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Russell,
This is circular - temperature is usually defined in terms of
entropy:
T^{-1} = dS/dE
This is wrong. The temperature is defined according to the Zeroth
Law. The Second Law just allows us to define the absolute
On Feb 7, 6:06 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Feb 2012, at 00:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm not lowering subst level at all, I'm saying that subst level
is an
indexical.
?
That's what you aren't getting about my position. Substitution level
is not a scalar
On Feb 7, 1:41 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you are proving that a computer in the position of the man has no
understanding then this thought experiment proves it.
How in hell would putting a computer in the
On Feb 7, 3:08 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/2/7 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Feb 6, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
More seriously, in the chinese room experience, Searle's error can be
seen also as a confusion of level. If I can emulate
I wrote it several times before and write it again: there is NO SUCH THING
as a FREE WILL in a world of total interconnectedness and continual change.
The term has been invented by religious potentates to keep gulligible
people under their thumb for FEAR of repraisals if they
committ CRIMES (as
Isn't a decision just the result / output of a probably subconscious
computation in the neural network, given some exogenous and endogenous inputs
? Indeed the neural net must do what it can with incomplete information, being
mostly what there is. That is, the nature of reality is unknown.
On 2/7/2012 4:11 PM, L.W. Sterritt wrote:
Isn't a decision just the result / output of a probably subconscious computation in
the neural network, given some exogenous and endogenous inputs ? Indeed the neural net
must do what it can with incomplete information, being mostly what there is.
On Feb 7, 6:31 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote it several times before and write it again: there is NO SUCH THING
as a FREE WILL in a world of total interconnectedness and continual change.
The term has been invented by religious potentates to keep gulligible
people under their
On Feb 7, 7:11 pm, L.W. Sterritt lannysterr...@comcast.net wrote:
Isn't a decision just the result / output of a probably subconscious
computation in the neural network, given some exogenous and endogenous
inputs ?
No, that's not a decision, it's an inevitable result. Our hypothalamus
does
A properly trained neural network does pattern recognition; why not pattern
creation? I don't see artistic genius as requiring the notion of free will.
Scientific genius is just more pattern recognition, isn't it?
Gandalph
On Feb 7, 2012, at 5:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 7, 6:31 pm,
Inevitable result? A neural network is a complex statistical processor (as
opposed to being tasked to sequentially process and execute). The brain may be
partitioned but it's all neurons. Given stochastic processes in the brain, not
much is an inevitable result - just probable results.
On Feb 7, 8:15 pm, L.W. Sterritt lannysterr...@comcast.net wrote:
A properly trained neural network does pattern recognition; why not pattern
creation? I don't see artistic genius as requiring the notion of free will.
Scientific genius is just more pattern recognition, isn't it?
I don't
2012/2/7 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Feb 7, 3:08 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/2/7 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Feb 6, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
More seriously, in the chinese room experience, Searle's error can be
32 matches
Mail list logo
