On 2/14/2012 05:57, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 11:18 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/14/2012 02:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 5:27 PM, acw wrote:
[SPK] There is a problem with this though b/c
it assumes that the field is pre-existing; it is the same as the
block
universe idea that
On 13 Feb 2012, at 16:54, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
What limits are there on what can constitute the constant that
defines a particular model of a non-standard Arithmetic?
Infinity.
Non standard integers are infinite objects.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
On 13 Feb 2012, at 16:26, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:16 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
RDR: Not sure if this is helpful, but a possible hypothetical
communications model is the 3D 10^90 per cc set Calabi-Yau Compact
Manifolds of
On 13 Feb 2012, at 16:24, David Nyman wrote:
On 13 February 2012 01:18, Joseph Knight joseph.9...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes it is, with the Movie Graph Argument. The MGA shows that
assuming COMP,
consciousness cannot be explained by appealing to any physical
system. Not
even a little.
On 13 Feb 2012, at 14:21, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Folks,
I have been mulling over my conversations with Bruno, Joseph and
ACW in the EVERYTHING list and have a question. In SANE04 we read
the following:
For any given precise running computation associated to some
inner
On 12 Feb 2012, at 18:14, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/11/2012 5:09 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On 2/11/2012 6:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2012, at 07:32, Stephen P. King wrote:
[JK]
Yet COMP is
On 12 Feb 2012, at 18:54, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm assuming the observations of quantum mechanics, but not the
interpretations.
So you assume QM?
I think that what we measure at that level is literally the
most 'common sense' of matter, and not an independent phenomena.
It is
the
On 12 Feb 2012, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 11, 8:04 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/2/11 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
All computers are as dumb as anything could be. Any computer will
run
the same loop over and over forever if you program them to
On 13 Feb 2012, at 18:47, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 12:11 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
I think you should probably read Maudlin's paper for specifics. I
don't think thermodynamics will have much to do with the
conclusions, whatever they may be (and I don't think it's obvious
what
On 14 Feb 2012, at 03:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
The idea of a measure that Bruno talks about is just another way
of talking about this same kind of optimization problem without
tipping his hand that it implicitly requires a computation to be
performed to find it.
Because UDA+MGA
On 2/14/2012 5:13 AM, acw wrote:
How does the existence on an entity determine its properties? Please
answer this question. What do soundness and consistency even mean
when there does not exist an unassailable way of defining what they are?
Look carefully at what is required for a proof, don't
On 2/14/2012 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2012, at 16:54, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
What limits are there on what can constitute the constant that
defines a particular model of a non-standard Arithmetic?
Infinity.
Non standard integers are infinite objects.
Bruno
On 14 Feb 2012, at 04:00, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 5:54 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/12/2012 17:29, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Folks,
I would like to bring the following to your attention. I think
that we
do need to revisit this problem.
On 14 Feb 2012, at 06:57, Stephen P. King wrote:
acw:
Yet the problem is decidable in finite amount of steps, even if
that amount may be very large indeed. It would be unfeasible for
someone with bounded resources, but not a problem for any abstract
TM or a physical system (are they one
On 2/14/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2012, at 03:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
The idea of a measure that Bruno talks about is just another way
of talking about this same kind of optimization problem without
tipping his hand that it implicitly requires a computation to be
On Feb 9, 2:45 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 8, 10:14 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Whatever. If you subjectivise it completely. it is no longer
of interest.
That's because you aren't taking subjectivity seriously.
Why would your subjective concerns matter
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 2/14/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2012, at 03:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
The idea of a measure that Bruno talks about is just another way of
talking about this same kind of optimization
2012/2/14 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 2/14/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2012, at 03:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
The idea of a measure that Bruno talks about is just another way of
talking about this same kind of optimization problem without tipping his
On Feb 12, 2:22 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 11, 8:04 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/2/11 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
All computers are as dumb as anything could be. Any computer will run
the same loop over and over forever if you
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2012/2/14 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 2/14/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2012, at 03:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
The idea of a measure that Bruno talks about is just another way
Hi Stephen,
On 14 Feb 2012, at 15:53, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/14/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2012, at 03:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
The idea of a measure that Bruno talks about is just another
way of talking about this same kind of optimization problem
On 14 February 2012 12:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
David, Tell me is I have succeed to clarify this.
The initial postulate is that the either MG set-up, or Maudlin's
machine, instantiates an episode of consciousness in virtue of its
computational states. The reductio
On Feb 13, 5:17 pm, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Digital substitution
is not a local symmetry.
hence flight simulators do not fly.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
On Feb 9, 4:43 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
It [being free] means your actions are not determined by external forces
So a external force like light that has reflected off a wall does not
effect your actions and you crash
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
To actually implement digital substitution, we would have to not only
match the functionally of the module internally but also match the
interactions of that module with the environment.
No, you'd only have to match he
On 2/14/2012 7:49 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/2/14 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 2/14/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Free Will is defined as the power or ability to rationally choose
If its rational then there is a reason for it and thus it's deterministic.
and consciously perform actions, at least some of which are not brought
about necessarily and
On Feb 14, 7:56 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Feb 2012, at 18:54, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm assuming the observations of quantum mechanics, but not the
interpretations.
So you assume QM?
I assume the observations, but not the interpretations. For example: I
assume
On 14 Feb 2012, at 18:53, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 13, 5:17 pm, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Digital substitution
is not a local symmetry.
hence flight simulators do not fly.
That's very funny, Peter.
That reminds us of a quite good typical comp exercise: can a virtual
On 2/14/2012 10:25 AM, Joseph Knight wrote:
[SPK]
The flaw is the entire structure of UDA+MGA, it assumes the
existence of the very thing that is claims cannot exist. It is a
theory that predicts that it cannot exist. How? By supposedly
proving that the physical world
On 2/14/2012 10:48 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com mailto:peterdjo...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Free Will is defined as the power or ability to rationally choose
If its rational then there is a reason for it and thus it's deterministic.
Except that game
On 2/14/2012 10:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
The flaw is the entire structure of UDA+MGA, it assumes the
existence of the very thing that is claims cannot exist. It is a
theory that predicts that it cannot exist. How? By supposedly
proving that the physical world does not
2012/2/14 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 2/14/2012 10:25 AM, Joseph Knight wrote:
[SPK]
The flaw is the entire structure of UDA+MGA, it assumes the existence
of the very thing that is claims cannot exist. It is a theory that predicts
that it cannot exist. How? By supposedly
2012/2/14 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 2/14/2012 10:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
The flaw is the entire structure of UDA+MGA, it assumes the existence
of the very thing that is claims cannot exist. It is a theory that predicts
that it cannot exist. How? By supposedly
On Feb 14, 7:56 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Feb 2012, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
All computers are as dumb as anything could be. Any computer will
run
the same loop over and over forever if you program them to do that.
It's not because you can program's them to
On 2/14/2012 11:31 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/14/2012 10:25 AM, Joseph Knight wrote:
[SPK]
The flaw is the entire structure of UDA+MGA, it assumes the existence
of the
very thing that is claims cannot exist. It is a theory that predicts that
it cannot
exist. How? By
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 2/14/2012 10:25 AM, Joseph Knight wrote:
[SPK]
The flaw is the entire structure of UDA+MGA, it assumes the existence
of the very thing that is claims cannot exist. It is a theory that predicts
that it
On 14 Feb 2012, at 17:52, David Nyman wrote:
On 14 February 2012 12:56, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
David, Tell me is I have succeed to clarify this.
The initial postulate is that the either MG set-up, or Maudlin's
machine, instantiates an episode of consciousness in virtue of
On 14 Feb 2012, at 20:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 14, 7:56 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Feb 2012, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
All computers are as dumb as anything could be. Any computer will
run
the same loop over and over forever if you program them to do
On Feb 14, 9:58 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Whatever. If you subjectivise it completely. it is no longer
of interest.
That's because you aren't taking subjectivity seriously.
Why would your subjective concerns matter to me? I take *my*
subjectivity as seriously as anything!
On 2/14/2012 1:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
We can conceive of non-existence because things can cease to exist. If
there were no light, then nothing could be imagined to be lacking
light. It would be no more possible than it is for us to conceive of
Non-Gromwalschedness in our universe.
So you
On Feb 14, 10:37 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 12, 2:22 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
That's what being dumb is - not being able to figure out how to do
anything else than what you already do.
Then no AI is fully dumb, since all are adaptive to some extent.
On Feb 14, 2:21 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The comp answer is yes you can be made wet by a virtual typhoon, but
you have to virtualize yourself, or more precisely you need only to
virtualize your skin-interfaces with the virtual typhoon.
Stephen, do you agree with this? Do
On Feb 14, 3:41 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2012, at 20:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 14, 7:56 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Feb 2012, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
All computers are as dumb as anything could be. Any computer will
On Feb 14, 6:35 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Silicon does not have the same chemical properties as the element germanium
either (although they are in the same column in the periodic table as is
carbon) and yet you can make transistors out of both and in fact the first
On Feb 14, 6:48 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Free Will is defined as the power or ability to rationally choose
If its rational then there is a reason for it and thus it's deterministic.
False, because causes need not be
On Feb 14, 9:47 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 14, 9:58 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Whatever. If you subjectivise it completely. it is no longer
of interest.
That's because you aren't taking subjectivity seriously.
Why would your subjective
On 14 February 2012 20:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The reductio demolishes the possibility of this
being true qua materia, because the relevant physical components
have, in effect, been rendered impotent.
Gosh? Why?
Bruno, I think we must be at cross-purposes. I thought
On 2/14/2012 1:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
How could any belief be possible under determinism? Belief implies a
voluntary epistemological investment. To be a believer is to choose to
believe.
Is it? Can you choose believe you are floating in the air? Can you believe you're not
reading
On Feb 14, 10:01 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 14, 10:37 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 12, 2:22 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
That's what being dumb is - not being able to figure out how to do
anything else than what you already
On Feb 14, 9:47 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 14, 9:58 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
You seem to be runnign off a theory of concept-formation
whereby concepts are only ever recongnitions of percerived
realities.
Not perceived realities, but ontological
On 2/14/2012 1:35 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
To actually implement digital substitution, we would have to not
only match the functionally of the module internally but also
match the
On 2/14/2012 2:21 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2012, at 18:53, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 13, 5:17 pm, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Digital substitution
is not a local symmetry.
hence flight simulators do not fly.
That's very funny, Peter.
That reminds us of a quite good
On 2/14/2012 2:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/2/14 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 2/14/2012 10:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
The flaw is the entire structure of UDA+MGA, it assumes
the existence of the very thing that is
On 2/14/2012 2:47 PM, meekerdb wrote:
My understanding is that the properties of the physical world are
inferred from our subjective experiences that have a consistency
(which Vic Stenger calls point-of-view-invariance) which allows us to
model them as being out there, i.e. objective.
55 matches
Mail list logo
