>
> Bruno merely asserts that nobody can mistake the fact that they exist.
>
Some people do, but it's considered pathological. But Bruno does more than
merely assert this. He then uses the same word, "conscious" in a
different, technical sense as a potential property of an axiomatic system.
And
That link doesn't work on Firefox, at least not for me. But it seems OK on
chrome...
I'm sure anyone who can follow a "Doctro Who" episode written by Steven
Moffat will have no trouble with that proof.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List
(Damn you, fingers. Or even *Doctor* Who...)
On 23 September 2014 14:29, LizR wrote:
> That link doesn't work on Firefox, at least not for me. But it seems OK on
> chrome...
>
> I'm sure anyone who can follow a "Doctro Who" episode written by Steven
> Moffat will have no trouble with that proof.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 05:07:07PM +1000, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> Are we not conflating slightly (to be) conscious - the fact of being aware
> and sensate; experiencing "being" as it were.with "consciousness" that
> woolly philosophical football? I think even in comman usage we don't do that.
On 9/22/2014 12:07 AM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 22 Sep 2014, at 3:21 pm, meekerdb wrote:
That's why he can say consciousness is all-or-nothing (potentialities are
all-or-nothing). That's why he thinks an infant is more conscious than an
adult - it has more potential (but less realization). That'
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 22 Sep 2014, at 06:46, LizR wrote:
>
> Surely Bruno doesn't think *anything *capable of (or having the potential
> for) computation is conscious?
>
>
>
> I hope my answer to Brent has clarified this.
>
> It is clearer when said in the t
On 22 Sep 2014, at 06:46, LizR wrote:
Surely Bruno doesn't think anything capable of (or having the
potential for) computation is conscious?
I hope my answer to Brent has clarified this.
It is clearer when said in the theory. We have the numbers 0, 1, 2,
3, ... Some are universal, and mo
On 22 Sep 2014, at 06:23, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 5:30 AM, meekerdb
wrote:
On 9/21/2014 6:58 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:22 AM, meekerdb
wrote:
On 9/21/2014 5:07 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Is an insect swarm conscious?
On 22 Sep 2014, at 05:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/21/2014 6:58 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:22 AM, meekerdb
wrote:
On 9/21/2014 5:07 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:34 AM, LizR wrote:
Good point Brent and one on which I am also equivoca
On 22 Sep 2014, at 03:22, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/21/2014 5:07 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:34 AM, LizR wrote:
Good point Brent and one on which I am also equivocal, which is why
I have been keen to tease out whether people are talking about
consciousness or the conte
On 22 Sep 2014, at 02:24, LizR wrote:
On 22 September 2014 12:07, Telmo Menezes
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:34 AM, LizR wrote:
Good point Brent and one on which I am also equivocal, which is why
I have been keen to tease out whether people are talking about
consciousness or the con
On 22 Sep 2014, at 02:07, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:34 AM, LizR wrote:
Good point Brent and one on which I am also equivocal, which is why
I have been keen to tease out whether people are talking about
consciousness or the contents of consciousness, and to try to wor
On 22 Sep 2014, at 01:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/21/2014 2:30 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> And I also know for a fact that those very same chemicals
degrade my ability to behave intelligently, and that's exactly what
you'd expect if Darwin was right.
> Again, all I believe that can be said
On 22 Sep 2014, at 00:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/21/2014 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Sep 2014, at 02:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/19/2014 9:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Sep 2014, at 03:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/18/2014 5:46 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Consciousness has a state (
On 22 Sep 2014, at 00:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/21/2014 9:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Sep 2014, at 21:10, John Clark wrote:
although his name wasn't on the original paper Bohr was without a
doubt the greatest teacher of quantum mechanics who ever lived and
he was extraordinarily gen
http://lesswrong.com/lw/t6/the_cartoon_guide_to_l%C3%83%C6%92%C3%86%E2%80%99%C3%83%E2%80%A0%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%84%A2%C3%83%C6%92%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%C5%A1%C3%83%E2%80%9A%C3%82%C2%B6bs_theorem/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsu
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:22 AM, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> On 9/21/2014 5:07 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:34 AM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>> Good point Brent and one on which I
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:24 AM, LizR wrote:
> On 22 September 2014 12:07, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:34 AM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>> Good point Brent and one on which I am also equivocal, which is why I
>>> have been keen to tease out whether people are talking about conscio
On 22 September 2014 20:57, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> On 20 Sep 2014, at 6:22 am, LizR wrote:
>
> Does this mean evolution is intelligent but (probably) not conscious?
>
> The Blind Watchmaker
>
> Yes.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" g
> On 20 Sep 2014, at 6:22 am, LizR wrote:
>
> Does this mean evolution is intelligent but (probably) not conscious?
The Blind Watchmaker
K
>
>
>> On 20 September 2014 03:01, Stephen Paul King
>> wrote:
>> Dear Bruno,
>>
>>I agree, this introduces the possibility that the "inhibitin
Here is an alternative paper suggesting the dust is not negligible but also
not disastrous:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.4491 published 3 days before the Planck paper
(above).
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:15 AM, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
> Dust, damned dust. Told yer.
>
> K
>
>
> On 22 Sep 2014, at 10:58 a
Dust, damned dust. Told yer.
K
> On 22 Sep 2014, at 10:58 am, LizR wrote:
>
> So cosmic inflation is apparently even less confirmed.
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.5738
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To un
> On 22 Sep 2014, at 3:21 pm, meekerdb wrote:
>
> That's why he can say consciousness is all-or-nothing (potentialities are
> all-or-nothing). That's why he thinks an infant is more conscious than an
> adult - it has more potential (but less realization). That's why he thinks
> losing all y
23 matches
Mail list logo
