Hi Bruno Marchal
I thought that comp is exactly opposite to what you say,
that computationalism is the belief that we can simulate
the mind with a computer program-- that the mind is computable.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/19/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end.
1) In his classic work on evolution, Chance and Necessity,
Jacques Monod describes this natural process as consisting
of a combination of chance mutations (contingency), which are blind
but free, and necessity, which knows what it is doing but can
do no other.
If that is a basis for modellin
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 06:03:03AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
1) In his classic work on evolution, Chance and Necessity,
Jacques Monod describes this natural process as consisting
of a combination of chance mutations (contingency), which are blind
but free, and necessity, which knows what
On 18 Nov 2012, at 19:30, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
We just agreed that the helsinki man is the one who remember
Helsinki, so that both the W and M man are still the Helsinki man.
Fine, and Bruno Marchal said that you is the Helsinki
On 19 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russell,
I agree with this view, especially the part about the
compatibility of bases leading to a 'sharing of realities' that then
gives rise to an illusion of a single
On 19 Nov 2012, at 05:03, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/18/2012 8:12 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russell,
I agree with this view, especially the part about the
compatibility of bases leading to a 'sharing of realities'
On 19 Nov 2012, at 11:22, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I thought that comp is exactly opposite to what you say,
that computationalism is the belief that we can simulate
the mind with a computer program-- that the mind is computable.
Yes that is correct (if by mind you mean the 3p
On 11/19/2012 9:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russell,
I agree with this view, especially the part about the
compatibility of bases leading to a 'sharing of realities' that
On 19 Nov 2012, at 15:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/19/2012 9:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russell,
I agree with this view, especially the part about the
compatibility
CORRECTION:
I said ..for converting many sensations NOT into one conscious
experience
I meant to say: ..for converting many sensations into one conscious
experience
--
I would like to suggest that the brain
On 19 Nov 2012, at 17:17, Roger Clough wrote:
CORRECTION:
I said ..for converting many sensations NOT into one conscious
experience
I meant to say: ..for converting many sensations into one conscious
experience
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 4:23:14 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:12:51AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Can you explain, in the simplest layman terms, why this argument can be
thrown out? The details are over my head, but it seems to me that the
argument
On 11/19/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
and the math shows that this will include some continuous/analog observable.
How does it show that?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
2012/11/19 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 11/19/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
and the math shows that this will include some continuous/analog
observable.
How does it show that?
Brent
Because the material reality is the sum of the infinity of computations
going through your
On 11/19/2012 1:14 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/11/19 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 11/19/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
and the math shows that this will include some continuous/analog observable.
How does it show that?
Brent
2012/11/19 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 11/19/2012 1:14 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/11/19 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 11/19/2012 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
and the math shows that this will include some continuous/analog
observable.
How does it show that?
Brent
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:29:58AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What I am asking is why would the single multiverse be any less dependent
upon multiplicity to accomplish its infinities of preserved separations
than a single universe does? If a universe needs a multiverse to justify
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 03:16:53PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2012, at 02:12, Russell Standish wrote:
which is the Occam's catastrophe redux I point
out in my book.
I suspect that as human beings, we rank amongst the simplest of all
possible observers.
Do you think that
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 11:58:01 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no mathematical justification for geometry though that I can
think of.
There are ways that numbers can describe geometry and ways that
geometry can describe numbers.
On 11/19/2012 4:52 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 02:12:33PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm postulating infinite regress because the idea that universes are being
created and preserved implies an meta-universal support which also must be
made of some kind of
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 02:45:43PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What I am asking is why does the idea of a multiverse help explain why any
one universe exists in the first place.
This could be one of two different questions, both of which are
evrything-list 101:
1) Why a universe, given a
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 04:48:14PM -0600, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/19/2012 4:52 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
What does this even mean? Anyone else know?
It means Craig is a wordbot? :-)
Brent
:)
--
Prof Russell
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:20:45AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
According to a web page, havege is probably the
best random number generator known, but it still
is not a true random number gen. There must be
They are probably being modest. What they have is as close to
On 11/19/2012 9:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Nov 2012, at 05:03, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/18/2012 8:12 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:48:57PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russell,
I agree with this view, especially the part about the
compatibility
24 matches
Mail list logo
