On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as discussed, assume that
the information content is exactly copyable.
Not exactly. Only sufficiently
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:59:55 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/4/2012 9:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so much as a challenge to
Bruno, just sharing my notes of why I disagree. Not sure how far I will get
this time, but here
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 12:06:18 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
yes, doctor: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire
thought experiment. If you agree that you are nothing
On 9/5/2012 12:44 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
The brain can process data as it is listening (like buffering a video
download) and likely predict the final word before it is done being
uttered. To prove the brain somehow overcomes this half second delay
in a convincing way, you would need to
On 9/5/2012 12:47 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 9:37 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russel,
In Craig's defense. When did ontological considerations become a
matter of contingency? You cannot Choose what is Real!
But you choose what is real in your theory of the world. Then you see
On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as
discussed, assume that the information content is exactly
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Something about microelectronics and neurology though that blinds us
to the chasm between the map and the territory. This kind of example
with pencil and paper helps me see how really bizarre it is to expect
a conscious experience to arise out of
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
To me it only makes sense that we are our whole life, not just the
brain cells or functions. The body is a public structural shadow of
the private qualitative experience, which is an irreducible (but not
incorruptible) gestalt.
Bingo!
--
Onward!
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
All that matters is that it can exactly carry our the necessary
functions. Individual minds are just different versions of one
and the same mind! To steal an idea from Deutsch, Other histories
are just different universes are just
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Why? If everything is a singular totality on one level, then
synchronization is the precondition of time. Time is nothing but
perspective-orchestrated de-synchronization.
No. Time is an order of sequentially givens. DO not assume per-orderings
because
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Yeah, I don't know, any kind of universe-as-machine cosmology seems no
better than a theological cosmology. What machine does the machine run
on? What meta-arithmetic truths make arithmetic truths true?
Maybe it is the act of us being aware of them
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
That's the right question to be asking! Errors are sentences that
are false in some code. Exactly how does this happen if one's
beliefs are predicated on Bp p(is true)?
Yeah, it seems to me like we should have to be spraying cybercide
On 9/5/2012 2:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 12:48:09 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
So you think somebody has to be looking at the Moon for it to exist?
What is existence other than the capacity to be detected in some way
by some thing (itself if nothing
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 2:27:18 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:40 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:14:17 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/4/2012 9:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 8:49:45 PM
Hi Stephen P. King
There was only one Big Bang, at least this time around,
because they have been able to measure it happening
about 19 billion years ago. There are otgher measurments
such as the background radiation that tell us more about it.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Hi Stephen P. King
No, the stuff in our skulls is alive, has intelligence, and a 1p.
Computers don't and can't. Big sdifference.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the
Hi Craig Weinberg
I obviously misunderstood your point.
I still don't.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver:
Hi Jason Resch
There's no ontological difference between a computer
and an abacus.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Jason Resch
Hi John Clark
God is real but cannot be found within spacetime because
he is unextended. So scientific talk about God is meaningless.
Actually, all science talk is meaningless if it is scientific.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to
Hi Jason Resch
Sorry. What needs explanation ?
Or is that even the right question ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Jason Resch
Hi John Clark
Apparently you fear you will not be able to tell which is true--
and in what cases-- 17th cent philosophical statements or modern science.
As a rule of thumb you might be skeptical about some statements of
17th century philosophers on science. But in some other cases one of them
Hi John Clark
There was once a patent issued for a combination rat trap and potato peeler
and people laugh about that, but using the exact same organ for both
excretory and reproductive purposes does not seem very intelligent to me
either, much less infinitely intelligent. And putting the blood
Hi Richard,
It occurred to me after I sent the previous that only
the Supreme monad can perceive becaise the rest of them
can't (they have no windows) yet their perceptioons
are continually being updated.
I don't usually think in terms of particular monadology statements,
Leibniz is perfectly
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 07:26:53PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 10:09:45 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
It is the meat of the
comp assumption, and spelling it out this way makes it very
explicit. Either you agree you can be copied (without feeling a
Hi Richard Ruquist
Capitalism is not a form of morality unless you consider
expanding the wealth of an entire nation to be moral.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:37:22AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russel,
In Craig's defense. When did ontological considerations become a
matter of contingency? You cannot Choose what is Real! That is the
entire point of Reality. It is not up to the choice of any one. It
is that
Hi Craig Weinberg
Speaking of teleportation, if that means time travel, I find it strangely
comforting that my parents
are actually, really alive back there in 1950. So in effect, you never
die, you just get time-shifted.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, If
Hi Craig Weinberg
IMHO the burden to show that computers are alive and
have intelligence lies on the scientists.
I see no evidence of life or real intelligence
in computers.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that
Hi Craig Weinberg
Exactly. There may a problem with this, but its seems
that if mind is everywhere (is inextended, so space is irrelevant),
I am always part of the mind of God. So saying that- when I look out
of my eyes, that is actually God looking out- which sounds
of course weird. Or that
Hi Craig Weinberg
Lord of the Flies is basically the conservative view put forth by Hobbes (and
Paul).
At root we are criminals.
Welfare is essentially the leftist view put forth by Rousseau.
At root we are saints.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, If
Hi Craig Weinberg
I don't like the word existence as it carries
so much baggage with it. What you describe
below is physical existence. That is a property
of extended entities.
Inextended entities such as mind and 1p and
thouights and feelings would be mentally
existent.
Roger Clough,
Hi Jason Resch
What you call a virtual world, Kant and Leibniz call the phenomenal world.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Jason Resch
On 04 Sep 2012, at 16:42, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
According to Leibniz there is only one live perceiver, and that
he calls the Supreme Monad. Actually, not the monad itself,
but what sees through the monad.Then when we see individually
we must see through that one eye. I believe
On 04 Sep 2012, at 16:49, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
IMHO God is the All, or better said, the uncreated intelligence
behind all
creation.
With the comp assumption, this sentence makes clear that Arithmetical
Truth, a strongly non computational reality, and which is uncreated
On 04 Sep 2012, at 17:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote:
Strangely you agree
for the 1-p viewpoint. But given that's what you *actually* live,
I don't
see how it makes sense to than proceed that there is a
On Sep 5, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Jason Resch
What you call a virtual world, Kant and Leibniz call the phenomenal
world.
Where did I use the term virtual world?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd
On 04 Sep 2012, at 22:40, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Right. It makes only first person sense to PA. But then RA has
succeeded in making PA alive, and PA could a posteriori realize
that
the RA level was enough.
Sorry, but it can't. It can't even abstract itself out to see that
On 05 Sep 2012, at 03:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so much as a challenge
to Bruno, just sharing my notes of why I disagree. Not sure how far
I will get this time, but here are my objections to the first step
and the stipulated assumptions of comp.
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:18:07 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
We knew you didn't accept this, so the rest of the argument is
irrelevant
to you. However, I'm still not sure despite multiple
On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
*yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up
the entire
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:43:35 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
I don't like the word existence as it carries
so much baggage with it. What you describe
below is physical existence. That is a property
of extended entities.
I agree, existence means different
On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:14 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
*yes, doctor*: This is really the
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:11:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
Exactly. There may a problem with this, but its seems
that if mind is everywhere (is inextended, so space is irrelevant),
I am always part of the mind of God. So saying that- when I look out
of my
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 6:45:06 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
I obviously misunderstood your point.
I still don't.
If there's something in particular I can clarify, let me know and I'll try
my best.
Craig
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net javascript:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:45, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Jason Resch
What you call a virtual world, Kant and Leibniz call the phenomenal
world.
Hmm.. You simplify too much. Virtual means simulated or emulated by a
universal machine, and this is a 3p notion. The 1p is the phenomenal
reality,
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 6:38:07 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
No, the stuff in our skulls is alive, has intelligence, and a 1p.
Computers don't and can't. Big sdifference.
Hi Roger,
锟斤拷� Please leave magic out of this, as any sufficiently advanced
Hi Richard Ruquist
It is immoral to you, but the stockholders love it.
And so do the consumers of the company's products.
In my personal ethics, what is moral enhances life.
the immoral diminishes life.
If anything, as observed above, the company
is creating wealth and so enhancing life.
Hi Bruno Marchal
I've been defending cosmic intelligence (CI)
or Cosmic Mind, of Life , not the christian God, not
the whole shebang, the Trinity.
But actually I think they're probably all the same.
CI was there before the world was created-- for sure,
else the world could not have
been
I don't think that life or mind or intelligence
can be teleported. Especially since nobody knows what
they are.
I also don't believe that you can download
the contents of somebody's brain.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
Hi Roger,
On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:23, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
No, the supreme Monad can see everything even
though the monads have no windows.
Also the closeness to God issue depends
on your clarity of vision and feeling. And perhaps appetites.
So everybody's different.
I
It is immoral to cause a recession that puts many out of work
and subsequently loss of home via foreclosure.
Bank of America is actually giving away
some of the homes they
have foreclosed.
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
It is immoral
Hi Bruno Marchal
Perhaps wrongly, I think of the world of monads as the virtual world.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Hi Craig Weinberg
Insist. Interesting idea.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time:
Hi Craig Weinberg
In politics there are thus two tribes (always have been, always will be:
a) Lord of the Flies is basically the conservative view put forth by Hobbes
(and Paul).
At root we are savages.
b) Welfare is essentially the leftist view put forth by Rousseau.
At root we are saints.
Leibniz, my mentor, believed that reality (being mental)
consists of an infinite collection of (inextended)
mathematical points called monads.
These can never be created or destroyed.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
Hi Craig Weinberg
Leibniz's universe is completely alive, as was Whitehead's.
Whitehead in particular spoke of events (as I recall)
as occasions of experience.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could
Hi Jason Resch
virtual reality model
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Jason Resch
Receiver: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Time:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Let's see, average survival of a Las Vegas hotel is what, 30 years? Then
they blow them up.
Yes, after that time a Las Vegas hotel no longer serves a function. The
Egyptian pyramids are quite different in that respect,
On 9/5/2012 9:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Sep 2012, at 17:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote:
Strangely you agree
for the 1-p viewpoint. But given that's what you *actually* live, I
don't
see how it makes
On 9/5/2012 9:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The neoplatonist conception of God does not allow It to ask such a
question.
Nor does Arithmetical Truth.
God has no self-reference power at all, as this would make it
inconsistent.
Dear Bruno,
Might it be agreeable to you to stipulate the
On 9/5/2012 11:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:14 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp
On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig wrote:
The test that I would use would be, as I have mentioned, to have someone be
walked off of their brain one hemisphere at a time, and then walked back on.
Ideally this process would be repeated several times for different
durations. That is the only test
On 9/5/2012 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Put in another way: there is no ontological hardware. The hardware and wetware are
emergent on the digital basic ontology (which can be described by numbers or combinators
as they describe the same computations and the same object: you can prove the
On 9/5/2012 1:40 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
Leibniz's universe is completely alive, as was Whitehead's.
Whitehead in particular spoke of events (as I recall)
as occasions of experience.
Hi Roger,
A.N.Whitehead's idea is similar to a version of Craig's sense idea made
in a
On 9/5/2012 11:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:01, Russell Standish wrote:
For certain choices of this or that, the ultimate reality is
actually unknowable. For instance, the choice of a Turing complete
basis means that the hardware running the computations is completely
Hi Folks,
I started reading the new Maudlin paper Time and the Geometry of
the Universe. I got it and started reading. I stopped dead when I read
the following:
Empirical considerations cannot establish the existence of such point
events, but the geometrical tools discussed herein
I think he was just saying that point events do not exist.
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Folks,
I started reading the new Maudlin paper Time and the Geometry of the
Universe. I got it and started reading. I stopped dead when I read the
On 9/5/2012 6:52 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I think he was just saying that point events do not exist.
So why discuss them?
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Folks,
I started reading the new Maudlin paper Time and the Geometry of the
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The ability to test depends entirely on my familiarity with the human and
how good the technology is. Can I touch them, smell them? If so, then I
would be surprised if I could be fooled by an inorganic body. Has there
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 06:23:57PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Folks,
I started reading the new Maudlin paper Time and the Geometry
of the Universe. I got it and started reading. I stopped dead when
I read the following:
Empirical considerations cannot establish the existence of
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 05:37:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:01, Russell Standish wrote:
For certain choices of this or that, the ultimate reality is
actually unknowable. For instance, the choice of a Turing complete
basis means that the hardware running the
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 3:13:05 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig wrote:
The test that I would use would be, as I have mentioned, to have someone be
walked off of their brain one hemisphere at a time, and then walked back on.
Ideally this process would be
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 3:13:05 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig wrote:
The test that I would use would be, as I have mentioned, to have someone
be
walked off of their brain one
On 9/5/2012 9:18 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 06:23:57PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Folks,
I started reading the new Maudlin paper Time and the Geometry
of the Universe. I got it and started reading. I stopped dead when
I read the following:
Empirical
Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net Sep 05 07:06PM -0400
On 9/5/2012 6:52 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I think he was just saying that point events do not exist.
So why discuss them?
Yes, what's the point?
:-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:32 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I agree with all you say, except the implication of the last sentence: that
evolution would never produce results with some inessential side effect.
First, evolution has to produce things by evolving - not starting from a
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 9:21:34 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 3:13:05 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig wrote:
The test that I would
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 11:26:43 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:32 AM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.netjavascript:
wrote:
I agree with all you say, except the implication of the last sentence:
that
evolution would never produce results with some inessential
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
But you couldn't realise you felt different if the part of your brain
responsible for realising were receiving exactly the same inputs from
the rest of the brain. So you could feel different, or feel nothing,
but
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I find that the least plausible explanation. It means that if a billion
people talk to each other and give each other information, that some kind of
consciousness must necessarily arise as a side-effect. You could say
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:32:21 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I find that the least plausible explanation. It means that if a billion
people talk to each other and give each other information,
On 9/5/2012 10:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:25:02 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
javascript:
wrote:
But you couldn't realise you felt different if the part of your brain
On 9/5/2012 10:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:32:21 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
javascript:
wrote:
I find that the least plausible explanation. It means that if a billion
people
83 matches
Mail list logo
