On 15 Aug 2012, at 14:10, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I disagree about the self not being a social contruct.
When I talk about the self, I am not talking about you. I think more
to the control structure making it possible to have a self.
I explain it from time to time, but it is a bit
On 15 Aug 2012, at 14:16, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
The materialists don't seem to have a very specific idea of what
governs us (the self)
and its actual (live) governing. The self is something like a
homunculus, which as
Dennet correctly remarks, leads to an infinite regress in
On 15 Aug 2012, at 15:13, Roger wrote:
Heidegger tried to express the point I tried to make below
by using the word dasein. Being there .
Not merely describing a topic or item, but seeing the
world from its point of view. Being inside it. Being there.
I agree. This is what I call the first
On 15 Aug 2012, at 15:14, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I ´m seduced and intrigued by the Bruno´s final conclussións of the
COMP hypothesis. But I had a certain disconfort with the idea of a
simulation of the reality by means of an algorithm for reasons I
will describe later.
Comp is I am a
On 15 Aug 2012, at 16:59, Jason Resch wrote:
These are quite interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YPYYvZOGlU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09Q5l47jTy8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwpv=PBXO_6Jn1fs
Are these not forms of life?
I would say yes. Quite cute :)
Note that
On 15 Aug 2012, at 17:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/15/2012 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is mine if the random generator is part of me. It is not mine if
the generator is outside of me (eg flipping the coin).
I don't see this. Why would the generator being part of you make it
your
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:15:59PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at 10:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:01:10PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Aug 2012, at 12:30, Russell Standish wrote:
Assuming the coin is operating inside the agent's body?
On 15 Aug 2012, at 21:09, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/15/2012 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. The ontological primary medium is given by any universal
system. I have chosen arithmetic to fix the thing.
OK, you chose arithmetic. But my claim is that is only one of an
infinite number
On 8/16/2012 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at 17:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/15/2012 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is mine if the random generator is part of me. It is not mine if
the generator is outside of me (eg flipping the coin).
I don't see this. Why would the
Hi Alberto G. Corona
Not if you select the best friends, the best woman, the best job,
the best stocks and the best doctor to help you get rich, stay healthy,
enjoy life, and raise a family. Or they select you.
These would help in getting an upscale woman.
And perhaps she has the social skills
BRUNO: I meant that some fixed hardware computer can emulate a virtual
self-modifying version of itself, so that your point is not valid.
ROGER: What point ? And emulate in what sense ? Ie could a computer ever be a
good wine taster ?
BRUNO: If not you introduce a notion of living matter
Roger,
According to string theory, the monad or Calabi-Yau compact particles are
hardware.
Richard
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
BRUNO: I meant that some fixed hardware computer can emulate a virtual
self-modifying version of itself, so that your point
Hi Bruno Marchal
Nothing is for sure, all I can quote are probabilties. The improbability of
life (based on
Hoyle's argument about the humungous improbability of the C atom being created
by chance)
suggests to me at least that a comp is highly improbable if it is to emulated a
living brain.
Hi Bruno Marchal
If there is an existing proof that bacteria can be modeled by Turing machines,
I'd find that extremely insteresting.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/16/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the
Hi Bruno Marchal
That's Cosmic Clockmaker argument. God created the
universe and let it just run by istself with no intervention.
But where or how did God come up with a blueprint ?
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/16/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
Bruno:
Are you reading Stanley Salthy? Know of his work in hierarchy theory?
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 12:56 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Is
On 16 Aug 2012, at 09:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:15:59PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at 10:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:01:10PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Aug 2012, at 12:30, Russell Standish wrote:
Assuming
Hi Bruno Marchal
Can this machine recognize its self in a mirror or line-up ?
Self-image would be a critical part of self-identity.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/16/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following
Hi Bruno Marchal
The Bible teaches that God spends much of his time
looking into men's hearts to see if love or evil rests there.
Would this be part of your definition of omniscience ?
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/16/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
On 16 Aug 2012, at 15:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/16/2012 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at 17:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/15/2012 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is mine if the random generator is part of me. It is not mine
if
the generator is outside of me (eg flipping
Hi Bruno Marchal
Thanks for the information.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/16/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-15,
I used the term *omniscience* in a rather general way, as a substitute for the
term *universal*
though it should be said that the purpose was to serve as adjective to the term
*computational*
rather than the other way around, as might be expected when the phrase is given
in the form of
On 16 Aug 2012, at 16:21, Roger wrote:
BRUNO: I meant that some fixed hardware computer can emulate a
virtual self-modifying version of itself, so that your point is not
valid.
ROGER: What point ? And emulate in what sense ? Ie could a computer
ever be a good wine taster ?
As I
Hi Bruno Marchal
You have a much more rational view of the mind/brain than I do.
You seem to believe that reason must always be involved, but
IMHO it need not and in faxct rarely is involved. I can walk up
stairs without looking at my feet or thinking right or left foot.
And when I see a red
On 8/16/2012 8:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Aug 2012, at 15:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/16/2012 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at 17:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/15/2012 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is mine if the random generator is part of me. It is not mine if
the
On 8/16/2012 8:34 AM, William R. Buckley wrote:
I used the term **omniscience** in a rather general way, as a substitute for the term
**universal**
though it should be said that the purpose was to serve as adjective to the term
**computational**
rather than the other way around, as might
On 16 Aug 2012, at 16:42, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Nothing is for sure, all I can quote are probabilties. The
improbability of life (based on
Hoyle's argument about the humungous improbability of the C atom
being created by chance)
suggests to me at least that a comp is highly
Hi Bruno Marchal
What is physical primitiveness ?
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/16/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-15,
On 16 Aug 2012, at 16:45, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
If there is an existing proof that bacteria can be modeled by Turing
machines,
I'd find that extremely insteresting.
It depends what you mean by bacteria. With comp no piece of matter can
be emulated by a Turing machine. So if by
On 16 Aug 2012, at 16:47, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Has anybody ever provided a proof that life is a computable entity ?
Nobody agrees on what life is.
If it is material, then life is not emulable.
If it is a more abstract information exchange, then it might be.
Keep in mind that,
On 16 Aug 2012, at 16:52, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
That's Cosmic Clockmaker argument.
I don't think so. If I am machine, neither God, nor physical reality,
nor consciousness, nor any Protagorean virtue, can be emulated
genuinely on a computer. Computer lived in the arithmetical
On 16 Aug 2012, at 16:59, William R. Buckley wrote:
Bruno:
Are you reading Stanley Salthy? Know of his work in hierarchy
theory?
I don't find references. Please give a link, or do a summary, if
possible explaining why that would be relevant. Thanks.
Bruno
wrb
From:
On 16 Aug 2012, at 17:09, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Can this machine recognize its self in a mirror or line-up ?
No problem.
Self-image would be a critical part of self-identity.
It might be a delusion too, I think. (they fall in that delusion trap
in the movie Source Code if you
On 8/16/2012 7:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
One must assume a mereology (whole-part relational scheme) in any
ontological theory or else there is no way to explain or communicate
it or about it.
That is exactly what I told you. Any universal system has a mereology.
But your existence theory
On 16 Aug 2012, at 17:11, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
The Bible teaches that God spends much of his time
looking into men's hearts to see if love or evil rests there.
Would this be part of your definition of omniscience ?
I don't believe in any form of ommiscience. You might read a book
Hi Bruno Marchal
Wow ! If true this would be the Holy Grail I've sought,
and the irony is that I could not understand what to do with it.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/16/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the
On 8/16/2012 7:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK]
There is no unique canonical labeling set of entities. There is (at
least!) an uncountable infinite equivalence class of them. Labels and
valuations cannot be considered as separable from the entities that
they act on as valuation. Therefore we
Hi Roger,
On 16 Aug 2012, at 17:40, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
You have a much more rational view of the mind/brain than I do.
You seem to believe that reason must always be involved, but
IMHO it need not and in faxct rarely is involved. I can walk up
stairs without looking at my feet or
On 8/16/2012 7:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[SPK] You do not have an explanation of interactions in COMP
[BM]
I have only the quantum logic. This does not change the vaility of the
reasoning. You reason like that, Darwin theory fail to predict the
mass of the boson, and string theory ignore
On 16 Aug 2012, at 17:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/16/2012 8:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Aug 2012, at 15:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/16/2012 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at 17:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/15/2012 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is mine if the random
On 16 Aug 2012, at 17:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/16/2012 8:34 AM, William R. Buckley wrote:
I used the term *omniscience* in a rather general way, as a
substitute for the term *universal*
though it should be said that the purpose was to serve as adjective
to the term *computational*
On 8/16/2012 9:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Aug 2012, at 16:59, William R. Buckley wrote:
Bruno:
Are you reading Stanley Salthy? Know of his work in hierarchy theory?
I don't find references. Please give a link, or do a summary, if possible explaining why
that would be relevant.
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
I have to say it again, it doesn't mean that a particular one cannot solve
the halting problem for a particular algorithm.
And unless you prove that that particular algorithm is undecidable
If it's undecidable that
On 8/16/2012 12:32 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
I have to say it again, it doesn't mean that a particular one cannot solve
the
halting problem for a particular algorithm.
And unless
On 8/16/2012 1:13 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Aug 2012, at 17:52, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
What is physical primitiveness ?
primitiveness of X means that we accept the existence, and some
property of X in the starting assumption we make for a theory.
Dear Roger and Bruno,
I
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 05:06:31PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Aug 2012, at 09:12, Russell Standish wrote:
Why would this be any different with random number generators? A coin
flips, and I do something based on the outcome. It is not my choice
(except insofar as I chose to follow an
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It's begging the question to say the computer chips have 'the same
functionality' as a rat's brain and then presume to claim that demonstrates
functional equivalence.
The whole question is what is meant by
47 matches
Mail list logo
