Hi jason
I think in that last sentence you misuse the term subjective.
In what way?
Also, in what way could uncertainty be anything other than subjective? Have you
ever seen an rock quivering in doubt? Certainty/uncertainty are properties of
1-p experiences and can't be anything but.
I
On 17 Oct 2013, at 03:19, LizR wrote:
On 17 October 2013 14:08, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
How could a machine be racist if it is totally incapable of any form
of relation or sentience, according to you?
Not according to me, I'm going along with Bruno. By his view, I am a
On 17 Oct 2013, at 04:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Right, but the mechanistic model of the brain would not fit very
well with that capacity. It would be like each part of a program
being able to control other parts by feel.
It is like that.
here is a recursive definition of a brain. It is
On 17 October 2013 16:58, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I would have agreed with Bruno completely a few years ago, but since then
I think that it makes more sense that arithmetic is a kind of sense than
that sense could be a kind of arithmetic. I think that mechanism is a kind
On 17 October 2013 21:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Arithmetical truth is not Turing emulable.
Is that anything to do with the halting problem ?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group
A quote I got somewhere: Understanding that the world is a Panopticon is
the easy part; the hard part is figuring out whether you're on the inside
looking out or the outside looking in.
Anyone have any thoughts? :) Personally, I find it interesting that quantum
physics allows _either_
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:37:58 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Oct 2013, at 04:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Right, but the mechanistic model of the brain would not fit very well with
that capacity. It would be like each part of a program being able to
control other parts by
To make matters worse, I think that it is a nesting panopticon. As
individuals we are watching others watch us. As social participants we are
part of society's watching of individuals. As members of human
civilization, we are a spectator of the collective voyeurism of biology,
chemistry, and
2013/10/17 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
And I don't understand the difference between first person
uncertainty and plain old fashioned uncertainty.
The difference is that from 3rd POV it is deterministic.
As
On 17 Oct 2013, at 08:04, chris peck wrote:
Also, in what way could uncertainty be anything other than subjective?
The uncertainty is objective (indeed provable) but it bears on set of
alternative *subjective* experiences. It is an objective probability
on subjective experiences, not
Oops, I meant plausibly no one watching :) I don't know how I slipped
that one up!
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 2:46 AM, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote:
A quote I got somewhere: Understanding that the world is a Panopticon is
the easy part; the hard part is figuring out whether you're on
On 17 Oct 2013, at 11:08, LizR wrote:
On 17 October 2013 21:36, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Arithmetical truth is not Turing emulable.
Is that anything to do with the halting problem ?
The halting problem gives an example of a simple problem, which is not
mechanically solvable.
On 17 Oct 2013, at 13:34, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:37:58 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Oct 2013, at 04:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Right, but the mechanistic model of the brain would not fit very
well with that capacity. It would be like each part of a
On 17 Oct 2013, at 16:53, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
And I don't understand the difference between first person
uncertainty and plain old fashioned uncertainty.
The difference is that from 3rd POV it is deterministic.
On 17 Oct 2013, at 18:07, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Oct 2013, at 08:04, chris peck wrote:
Also, in what way could uncertainty be anything other than
subjective?
The uncertainty is objective (indeed provable) but it bears on set
of alternative *subjective* experiences. It is an
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 1:18:21 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Oct 2013, at 13:34, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:37:58 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Oct 2013, at 04:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Right, but the mechanistic model of the brain
On 10/17/2013 2:46 AM, Stephen Lin wrote:
A quote I got somewhere: Understanding that the world is a Panopticon is the easy part;
the hard part is figuring out whether you're on the inside looking out or the outside
looking in.
I thought the Panopticon was conceived as a way that everyone
On 17 October 2013 12:52, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Whichever way you look at it with the heart, the cars or the brain, it
is a sequence of physical events A-B-C etc.
It's not a sequence, it's different scopes of simultaneous. I decide to go
to the store. That's A. I get
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I see your reference and raise you a reference back to section 4.1 of
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312136
From the paper:
What of the crucial question: should Alice1
Whoa, dude... you just blew my mind!
I love this list!
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:46:14 AM UTC-4, Stephen Lin wrote:
A quote I got somewhere: Understanding that the world is a Panopticon is
the easy part; the hard part is figuring out whether you're on the inside
looking out or the
On 18 October 2013 13:42, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
The basis problem is no different from the present problem under special
relativity: If we exist in many times across space time, why do we find
ourselves in this particular now?
I don't know about the basis problem, but the
It gets better...
On 18 October 2013 14:01, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.comwrote:
Whoa, dude... you just blew my mind!
I love this list!
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:46:14 AM UTC-4, Stephen Lin wrote:
A quote I got somewhere: Understanding that the world is a Panopticon
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:10:50 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On 17 October 2013 12:52, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Whichever way you look at it with the heart, the cars or the brain, it
is a sequence of physical events A-B-C etc.
It's not a
Hi Jason
Subject refers to the I, the indexical first-person.
The word 'I' is indexical, like 'now' and 'here'. The experience isn't
indexical, its just me.
This page offers some examples of the distinction (
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/indexicals/#PurIndTruDem ).
Thanks. Im
On 18 October 2013 15:04, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Immediately after teleportation there will be uncertainty because you are
no longer sure of your location but are sure that you have been duplicated
and sent to one place or the other. This gives room for doubt. Before
Hi Bruno
Hi Bruno
The uncertainty is objective
How can uncertainty be objective Bruno?
Uncertainty is a predicate applicable to experiences only.
To insist, I use first person indeterminacy instead of subjective
indeterminacy
In step 3 you ask the reader to assess what he would 'feel'
On 10/17/2013 6:04 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 October 2013 13:42, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
The basis problem is no different from the present problem under special
relativity: If we exist in many times across space time, why do we find
ourselves
On 10/17/2013 7:04 PM, chris peck wrote:
Interestingly, Everett was allegedly certain of his own immortality. One of the reasons
he specified in his will that his ashes should be ditched alongside the trash. I can't
imagine a more morbid yet expressive demonstration of subjective certainty
On 10/17/2013 5:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I see your reference and raise you a reference back to section 4.1 of
29 matches
Mail list logo
