On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:59:50 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Hey Craig!
I watched the video... very cool!
Hi Dan, glad you liked it.
Questions:
1) Who is the user of the interface? What is us?
I'm not sure what Hoffman's answer would be, but I think that the user is
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:48 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 8:49 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Whether or not it has an I model it is making untrue claims which I
consider suffi ent to call lying.
You call it lying whenever someone is mistaken??
According to the same
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
I do not think that block time is a coherent idea. It assumes something
impossible: that a unique foliation of space-time can be defined that
correlates to a specific experience of an entity
Dear Edgar,
Is P-time observable?
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
PS: I agree with the rest of what you are saying here but again you are
talking about clock time, dimensional spacetime, and not P-time which is
distinct and is prior to
Dear Edgar,
The closest thing that I can comprehend that might line up with your
ideas of a abstract dimensionLESS computational space is a Hilbert space.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
There is no all of spacetime nor each point of
Dear Jason,
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
I do not think that block time is a coherent idea. It assumes
something impossible: that a unique
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 16 Jan 2014, at 10:28, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:02, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
There is still FPI going on
2014/1/16 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 16 Jan 2014, at 10:28, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:02, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal
On 1/16/2014 9:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Perhaps, perhaps not. We have to compare the mass of the electron we measure in our
neighborhood, with the mass of the electron in the comp physics. If the comp physics is
agnostic on the electron mass, it means that the mass of electron is not a
On 17 January 2014 08:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Like a super-intelligent AI will treat us as we want to be treated.
Why not? I hope you haven't been mistreating *your* pets!
I don't want to be neglected in your generous disbursal of funds.
No, me neither. In fact give me a
On 17 January 2014 08:40, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 January 2014 03:51, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
(SNIP)
Still, the fact remains that if your local realistic time-symmetric
theory of physics
On 17 January 2014 10:01, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
You can disagree, but it's a fact, we can make video game, so we can make
any rules we want in the created virtual worlds, nothing prevent us to do
so.
Yes, I made up a game in which 17 is an even number and an infinite
Der LizR,
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:14 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Stephen,
I have a 2c worth on block time, too :)
On 17 January 2014 09:33, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Jason,
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
I do not
On 1/16/2014 10:06 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:37 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 10:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:46 PM, spudboy...@aol.com
mailto:spudboy...@aol.com
wrote:
Dear Jason,
Block time does not offer any explanation for the notion of a flow of
time, even if such is an illusion. Something has to account for the
asymmetry of the arrow of thermodynamics. My proposed solution is to assume
that Becoming is a ontological property, not an illusion at all, pace
On 1/16/2014 10:07 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Jason,
I do not think that block time is a coherent idea. It assumes something impossible:
that a unique foliation of space-time can be defined that correlates to a specific
experience of an entity that is said to be embedded in the
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 10:06 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:37 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 10:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:46 PM, spudboy...@aol.com
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
Block time does not offer any explanation for the notion of a flow of
time, even if such is an illusion.
Please explain how you know this.
Something has to account for the asymmetry of the
On 1/16/2014 10:14 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:44 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 11:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:44 AM, freqflyer07281972
thismindisbud...@gmail.com
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:00 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 10:14 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:44 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 11:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:44 AM, freqflyer07281972
Hi Stephen
On 17 January 2014 09:33, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
The first part is right, but within a given foliation, there is an ordering
of events. It's only when comparing foliations that you get different
orders. (I believe this is called proper time or
On 17 January 2014 10:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Jason,
Block time does not offer any explanation for the notion of a flow of
time, even if such is an illusion. Something has to account for the
asymmetry of the arrow of thermodynamics.
Something does! The
Liz: the first that came to mind was Edgar's isn't it obvious'? but I did
not want to make fun of him.
Of you: maybe. How do you expect me to give you examples from BEYOND our
knowable circumstances to illustrate what is beyond our knowable? Physix
works with the boundaries of our present
Bruno, as I recall my recollection of Colin was an oldie one from his
young-age ideas. Many many years ago.
John
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 23:09, John Mikes wrote:
Brent:
thanks for submitting Colin Hales' words!
I lost
On 1/16/2014 10:32 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
They only 'seem to' because you neglect the fact that in the experiment you
don't
use the digits of pi from Platonia, you use their physical instantiation as
calculated in the registers of a computer or written ink on a page.
And what is
On 17 January 2014 12:01, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz: the first that came to mind was Edgar's isn't it obvious'? but I
did not want to make fun of him.
Perish the thought.
Of you: maybe. How do you expect me to give you examples from BEYOND our
knowable circumstances to
On 17 January 2014 12:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 10:32 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
They only 'seem to' because you neglect the fact that in the experiment
you don't use the digits of pi from Platonia, you use their physical
instantiation as calculated in the registers
On 1/16/2014 11:00 AM, LizR wrote:
On 17 January 2014 07:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/16/2014 1:48 AM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 20:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 7:08 PM,
On 17 January 2014 12:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You do use both in the forward case, but people kind of slide over the
initial condition which is that you produce two particles with net-zero
spin. It might seem more symmetric if we did the forward case by creating
a lot of
Brent,
First the observer being at the event is the way all science is observed
and confirmed. That is what an observation is. You speak as if it's somehow
unimportant. Again this first argument merely proves there is a present
moment for each observer, not a common universal present moment.
Stephen,
Yes, of course p-time is observable. The present moment of p-time is the
present moment we all observe our entire existence within from birth to
death.
It's the most fundamental and persistent of observations...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:28:06 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul
Dear Edgar,
Can you describe the construction or basic mechanism that one would use
to measure P-time?
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
Yes, of course p-time is observable. The present moment of p-time is the
present moment we all observe
On 16 January 2014 23:08, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 09:11, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 16 January 2014 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
The computational metaphor in the sense of the brain works like the Intel
CPU inside the box on your desk
Stephen,
We have to be very careful when we try to 'measure' p-time because it is
prior to dimensionality since it provides the processor cycles in which
dimensionality and thus measure is computed and is the locus or substrate
of those computations.
We all experience the present moment of
On 17 January 2014 01:17, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 16, 2014, at 2:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 January 2014 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
The computational metaphor in the sense of the brain works like the Intel
CPU
On 17 January 2014 13:34, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I meant that if the physics of the brain is computable it follows as a
straighforward deduction that it would *at least* be possible to make
a philosophical zombie. It is then a further argument to show that it
would not
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 6:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 January 2014 13:34, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I meant that if the physics of the brain is computable it follows as a
straighforward deduction that it would *at least* be possible to make
a philosophical
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 10:32 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
They only 'seem to' because you neglect the fact that in the experiment
you don't use the digits of pi from Platonia, you use their physical
instantiation as calculated in the
On 13 January 2014 00:00, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 12:21:48 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am
conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in
a special way might not
On 17 January 2014 13:43, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 6:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 January 2014 13:34, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I meant that if the physics of the brain is computable it follows as a
straighforward
On 13 January 2014 02:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Jan 2014, at 06:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am
conscious,
I think this is misleading. Are you really a dumb of matter? I think that
your body can be a lump
On 13 January 2014 04:42, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am
conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in
a special way might not also be conscious. What is it about that idea
that you see as not
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 6:49 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 January 2014 13:43, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 6:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 January 2014 13:34, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:
I meant that if the
On 17 January 2014 11:43, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 6:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 January 2014 13:34, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I meant that if the physics of the brain is computable it follows as a
straighforward
On 17 January 2014 14:00, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 6:49 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 January 2014 13:43, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 6:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 January 2014 13:34,
On 17 January 2014 14:00, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
At least *weak* AI would be possible. Weak AI means computers could do
everything we do but without necessarily being conscious. Strong AI
means they would also be conscious.
I checked the definition a short whle ago on
On 1/16/2014 2:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
No, you are missing the point. It is not that they are similar enough to be
you, it
is that they share everything that was necessary for /you /to be present in
them.
Your current perspective does not rule out that you are seeing from their
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 1:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 10:06 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:37 AM, meekerdb
On 17 January 2014 14:17, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
Historically, AI researchers did not consider the question of whether
a computer that behaves intelligently was conscious, on the assumption
that intelligence was observable while consciousness was not and
therefore not a
On 1/16/2014 4:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 10:32 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
They only 'seem to' because you neglect the fact that in the experiment
you
don't use
Yeah - I get Kurt Goedel (oe counts as one letter in German script),
but usually I find cryptic crosswords infuriating :).
Cheers
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 08:52:50PM +1300, LizR wrote:
Everyone on this list should be able to get 6 down!!!
On 14 January 2014 20:51, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
On 1/16/2014 4:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 13 January 2014 04:42, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am
conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in
a special way might not also be conscious.
On 1/16/2014 5:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 1:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
101 - 154 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
