On 11 Oct 2012, at 15:40, Roger Clough wrote:
This might be of possible importance with regard to comp.
First of all, there are a fixed number of monads in this world,
since they
cannot be created or destroyed.
Fixed number? You mean a finite number or an infinite cardinal?
While, as
On 11 Oct 2012, at 16:09, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Craig Roger,
Here is a possible middle ground. Just like quantum waves may be
virtual and not physical,
dimensions may be virtual, including the multiple dimensions of string
theory. So the particles of compactified dimensions would be virtual
life, consciousness, free will, intelligence
I try to give a phsical definition of each one:
Life: whathever that maintain its internal entropy in a non trivial way (A
diamant is not alive). That is, to make use of hardwired and adquired
information to maintain the internal entropy by making
Hi Richard Ruquist
So what's your problem ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/12/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-11, 11:35:29
Subject:
On 11 Oct 2012, at 16:20, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 10 Oct 2012, at 13:31, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I think that consciousness, intelligence and some measure of free
will are
necessary and inseparable parts of life
On 11 Oct 2012, at 17:31, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 11.10.2012 17:20 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 10 Oct 2012, at 21:27, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.10.2012 17:16 Craig Weinberg said the following:
http://s33light.org/post/33296583824
Have a look. Objections? Suggestions?
I am
On 11 Oct 2012, at 17:39, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: BEC are Turing emulable, so you can't get substance dualism,
Richard: Please explain why not.
It is the object of the UD Argument. If there is a level where my body/
brain (whatever it is) is Turing emulable, then the physical reality
Bruno,
Well if you do not need any substances at all, that includes
electrons, protons, neutrons,
neutrinos, dark matter and energy as well as particles of the mind. So
if any of these so-called substances have any existence at all, then I
bet that they all do, which is all I need for my
Roger,
Brian definitely thinks that spacetime exists.
You have said otherwise.
Richard
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:48 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
So what's your problem ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/12/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near
Hi Bruno Marchal
Not all simulations that work in Platonia can work
down here in Contingia. For example, time in
principle can flow backward up there but it can not
flow backward down here.That's why
theories have to be tested. Simulation would
not always actually work.
This does not seem
On the contrary Roger, Feynman had to allow time to flow backwards for
some particles in order to complete his Quantum ElectroDynamics QED
theory.
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Not all simulations that work in Platonia can work
down
Hi John Clark
I have no money on this issue. I'd be very happy
if you could tell me how to determine if a computer has
intelligence, free will, consciousness or life.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/12/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
-
Hi John Clark
IMHO everything that happens happens for a reason.
The reason can be physical or IMHO mental.
The former is not free will, the latter has some possibility of being
free to some extent, that is to say, to be self-intentioned. My claim is that
self-intentioned acts are the products
Hi Russell Standish
Life cannot survive without making choices,
like where to go next. To avoid an enemy. To get food.
This act of life obviously requires an autonomous choice.
Nobody can make it for you. It can't be pre-programmed.
Free autonomous choice is a description in my view of
Hi Richard Ruquist
OK. If Feynman said it, it's got to be right. Now I recall that
theoretically it has to be that time can locally flow backwards,
for growing life has to reverse entropy into energy to produce
cellular structure.
So Brian Greene was wrong, time in some special cases can
Hi Richard Ruquist
I don't think he meant that spacetime physically exists.
Spacetime is a formalism. Formalisms don't physically exist.
In fact nothing theoretical physically exists.
The pythagorean theorem doesn't physically exist.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/12/2012
Forever
On 11 Oct 2012, at 23:47, Russell Standish wrote:
That's serious cool! I love the comment posted Stephen Wolfram is
very angry!
They do discrete time (Euler integration), but one could easily make
it continuous by replacing it with a Runge-Kutta integration scheme.
Thanks for posting this.
They are certainly cool looking and biomorphic. The question I have is, at
what point do they begin to have experiences...or do you think that those
blobs have experiences already?
Would it give them more of a human experience if an oscillating
smiley-face/frowny-face algorithm were added
On Friday, October 12, 2012 8:15:42 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi John Clark
IMHO everything that happens happens for a reason.
The reason can be physical or IMHO mental.
Ok, but why are there any 'reasons' to begin with? If there can be reasons
which did not exist before, then
Hi Bruno Marchal
A) I do see the phrase an infinite number of monads at numerous places on the
internet.
So I assume that there are an infinite number of monads, or at least as
many monads
as there are corporeal bodies in the universe.
B) On the other hand, 'each created Monad
Hi Richard,
On 12 Oct 2012, at 13:26, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno,
Well if you do not need any substances at all, that includes
electrons, protons, neutrons,
neutrinos, dark matter and energy as well as particles of the mind. So
if any of these so-called substances have any existence at all,
Hi Roger Clough,
On 12 Oct 2012, at 13:39, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Not all simulations that work in Platonia can work
down here in Contingia.
I doubt this.
For example, time in
principle can flow backward up there but it can not
flow backward down here.
I have never seen
Hi Alberto G. Corona
There is a computer robot program or language called the
bdi model, where
b=belief
d= desire
i = intention
In my thinking consciousness might sort of
fit into such a model,
b=belief = thinking or intelligence (sort of)
d= desire = Missing from my model.
i = intention
On 12 Oct 2012, at 14:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
They are certainly cool looking and biomorphic. The question I have
is, at what point do they begin to have experiences...or do you
think that those blobs have experiences already?
Would it give them more of a human experience if an
Wiki: In philosophy of mind, dualism is the assumption that mental
phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical,[1] or that the mind and
body are not identical.[2] Thus, it encompasses a set of views about
the relationship between mind and matter, and is contrasted with other
positions, such as
Roger,
Brian for sure knows and understands Feynman's QED.
He could not get that wrong. You probably misunderstood him.
Richard
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
OK. If Feynman said it, it's got to be right. Now I recall that
On 12 Oct 2012, at 10:27, Brett Hall wrote:
On 12/10/2012, at 16:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 10 Oct 2012, at 10:44, a b wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Brett Hall brhal...@hotmail.com
wrote:
On 09/10/2012, at 16:38, hibbsa asb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 Oct 2012, at 16:30, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Wiki: In philosophy of mind, dualism is the assumption that mental
phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical,[1] or that the mind and
body are not identical.[2] Thus, it encompasses a set of views about
the relationship between mind and
What is a substance=monad in Leibniz ?
Leibniz's substances (monads) more resemble Plato's forms than being
defined by their material makeup. This comes from his use of parts
to define substances, or monads. Parts are unified regions with borders.
Monads or substances are mental (therefore
ROGER:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Not all simulations that work in Platonia can work
down here in Contingia.
BRUNO: I doubt this.
ROGER: Things do not change in Platonia but they do on earth.
(previously) For example, time in
principle can flow backward up there but it can not
flow
Hi Bruno Marchal
life= freedom= self-autonomy
What do I know, but IMHO if comp has
any constraints-- follows any rules or
has language contraints-- it does not
have free will to that extent. It is
somewhat predictable.
But it may be possible, as you have hinted, that
things can happen (as
Hi Bruno Marchal
Life is whatever operates autonomously,
not following any rules, laws, or programs.
Thus a Turing machine cannot be part of
a live creature. Even if it reprograms itself, it
must be constrained by the computer language
and operating system.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
Hi Craig Weinberg
I would begin to believe that that life-game
is conscious if there is some sort of shepherding
done by a shepherd. A watcher and director.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/12/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the
Hi Craig Weinberg
There's no proof, only a very reasonable expectation.
Science could not work if things happened for no reason.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/12/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From:
On 10/12/2012 3:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
life, consciousness, free will, intelligence
I try to give a phsical definition of each one:
Life: whathever that maintain its internal entropy in a non trivial way (A diamant is
not alive). That is, to make use of hardwired and adquired
My opinion for what that is worth is that arithmetical dreams
describe what happens in heaven where whatever we think
becomes reality and if enough of us think the same thing
it becomes a video game we can play together.
My opinion is that inanimate physical things are more concrete
even if
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 , Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
IMHO everything that happens happens for a reason.
Opinions, humble or otherwise, really don't count for much, the universe
will continue doing what it is doing regardless of your opinion; and modern
physics tells us that it is
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Keep in mind that I use the compatibilist definition of free will, which
is the (machine) ability to exploits its self-indetermination (with
indetermination in the Turing sense, (not in the comp first person sense,
nor the quantum
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So you see no reason to draw a legal distinction between a banker to
takes money from his bank to support a more lavish life style and one who
does it to keep a bank robber from shooting him?
No.
John K Clark
--
You received this
On 10/12/2012 1:39 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So you see no reason to draw a legal distinction between a banker to
takes money
from his bank to support a more lavish life style and one who does it to
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 08:23:33AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
Life cannot survive without making choices,
like where to go next. To avoid an enemy. To get food.
This act of life obviously requires an autonomous choice.
Nobody can make it for you. It can't be
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 05:50:11AM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
They are certainly cool looking and biomorphic. The question I have is, at
what point do they begin to have experiences...or do you think that those
blobs have experiences already?
Would it give them more of a human experience
On 10/12/2012 1:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 08:23:33AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
Life cannot survive without making choices,
like where to go next. To avoid an enemy. To get food.
This act of life obviously requires an autonomous choice.
Nobody
Hi Russell,
Even more suggestive is its similarity to Butschli protocells... see
this video for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tmTDvL1AUs and many others uploaded by
Rachel Armstrong... as she describes them a simple self-organizing
system that is formed by the addition of a drop of
44 matches
Mail list logo
