On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/23/2015 1:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 5:50 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
I said it before I'll say it
2015-03-24 1:57 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 3/23/2015 5:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 24 March 2015 at 13:07, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Yes, as I understand it that's the argument. It's consistent with
Platonism. A computer program's execution written out on paper is
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:52 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
In my opinion the fundamental problem with the Turing Test is that
passing it is an act of deception. The computer has to fake being a human.
Lying
This book has -abundance- of references, that you may contrast, about who
keynes was and what was his role of this self described as bolshevik,
married with a militant soviet dancer, who traveled freely trough the USSR
in the middle of the worst red terror and still praising the USSR, whose
Le 25 mars 2015 00:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit :
On 3/24/2015 2:23 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-03-24 1:57 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 3/23/2015 5:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 24 March 2015 at 13:07, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Yes, as I understand it
On 25 March 2015 at 06:23, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Most people can't do that either. And researchers at the University of
Edinburgh made a machine that can write jokes such as I like my
relationships like I like my source, open. Well OK maybe it's not a
particularly funny
On 25 March 2015 at 06:23, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
And anyway the really important thing isn't if you can detect if the
thing you're talking to is a human but if you can detect if the thing
you're talking to
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 6:23 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
And anyway the really important thing isn't if you can detect if the
thing you're talking to is a human but if you can detect if the thing
you're
On 3/24/2015 2:23 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-03-24 1:57 GMT+01:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net:
On 3/23/2015 5:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 24 March 2015 at 13:07, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Yes, as I
On 3/24/2015 2:34 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
This does not mean that gigantic search trees cannot be used to create generic
intelligence, but I am quite skeptical that they can. This skepticism comes from the
observation that the human brain is highly associative, distributed and asynchronous. So
On 23 Mar 2015, at 18:12, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
We can't detect intelligence in machine, does not mean that
machine are not intelligent. We can't detect intelligence in human
too.
Thus Sarah Palin could be more intelligent than
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
John-before-he-looks can still reflect on his possible futures.
On who's possible future? Please please please stop with the damn ambiguous
personal pronouns!
That is what you are being asked. What is your personal feeling,
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
it will be more than human.
I'm not sure what that means.
It means that a future machine can perform any task in a way that is
superior to way that any human who ever lived could using any definition of
superior that you care
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:25:04AM +0100, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le 25 mars 2015 00:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit :
When rerunning the program with the recorded initial input, by hypothesis
the second run must be as conscious as the first when the inputs came from
the 'real'
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Then the john-before-he-measures-the-photon-spin can't measure the photon
spin,
Photons have polarization not spin, electrons spin but obviously
john-before-he-measures-the-electron-spin can't measure it, but John can.
However
On 23 Mar 2015, at 19:58, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/23/2015 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Mar 2015, at 22:45, LizR wrote:
On 23 March 2015 at 07:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't think step 3 is at all essential to the argument. It's
nothing but setting up an analogy to
On 23 Mar 2015, at 19:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/23/2015 9:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
To admit it is theology consists in admitting that we need some act
of faith, so it is a type of religion. It is a belief in the
possibility of some reincarnation.
The trouble with needing some act of
On 23 Mar 2015, at 20:36, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno wrote:
The problem is that there are few people serious in logic, in QM and
in philosophy of mind. And defamation does not help especially in
interdisciplinary field.
Which logic? (you mentioned the math-one)
Good question. For some
On 23 Mar 2015, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/23/2015 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Mar 2015, at 22:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/22/2015 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Who? (Jean-Paul Delahaye? Bill Taylor? Invite them to present
themselves an argument, because if it is a valid
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 1:53 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TEPCO admits Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 core completely melted down
On Mon, Mar 23,
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
And anyway the really important thing isn't if you can detect if the
thing you're talking to is a human but if you can detect if the thing
you're talking to is intelligent.
Yes, that is the important thing. That is not
On 24 Mar 2015, at 02:58, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/23/2015 5:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 24 March 2015 at 08:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
That every number has a unique successor for one.
Let's call the first
On 24 Mar 2015, at 01:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/23/2015 5:02 PM, LizR wrote:
On 24 March 2015 at 08:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That every number has a unique successor for one.
Let's call the first number that doesn't have a unique successor
n...
That's one possible form of
On 24 March 2015 at 16:31, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/23/2015 10:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 02:17:40PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
If you take the block universe model seriously then we are nothing
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/23/2015 10:31 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
Aye, there's the rub. Bruno claims that such capricious sequences of
experience must have small measure. But I think the must means so
that my theory will hold water. Anyway he admits it's an open
problem to
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 24 March 2015 at 16:31, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 3/23/2015 10:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 02:17:40PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
If you take the block universe model
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
the John-before-he-looks will be uncertain of what he will see
People just can't get over that damn pronoun addiction! If he is the
John-before-he-looks then he will see nothing because he hasn't looked
yet. If the
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:41 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
*From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 3:48 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 , meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If you really want it to be like the MWI explanation of the 2 slit
experiment (the one when the photons end up hitting a photographic plate
rater than continue into infinite space) then you'd have to modify Bruno's
thought
On 23 Mar 2015, at 20:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/23/2015 10:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK, but people are also unaware that logicians have made tremendous
progress in metamathematics-alias mathematical logic, so we can
talk on things non provable by this or that machine, and that some
What's wrong with Last Thursdayism?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send
LizR wrote:
What's wrong with Last Thursdayism?
Nothing that I know of. But people tend not to like the idea.
Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
So the recombination explicitly knits together the brains to preserve both
sets of memories. This would work OK if brains were hard drives, I guess! I
don't know how feasible-in-theory it is with real ones. (Or what it would
prove.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
2015-03-24 21:44 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
the John-before-he-looks will be uncertain of what he will see
People just can't get over that damn pronoun addiction! If he is the
John-before-he-looks then he will see
On 25 Mar 2015, at 7:44 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
the John-before-he-looks will be uncertain of what he will see
People just can't get over that damn pronoun addiction! If he is the
John-before-he-looks
35 matches
Mail list logo
