On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Apr 2015, at 02:30, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:19 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
You should both go to jail, on the basis that both copies of you had the
same consciousness as the person
On 27 April 2015 at 19:22, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
LizR wrote:
Yes that's more of less what SA said - they've got around the clock speed
limit by multiplying cores, but they can't get around the fact that
components can't be scaled below (I think) 14nm without that
On 27 April 2015 at 07:43, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
That all relies too much on the assumption that comp is true
At the risk of pointing out the stunningly obvious, *everything* in Bruno's
argument is premised on the truth of the comp thesis, summarised in the
claim that
On 27 April 2015 at 07:43, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Mose people get on living in the world by means of heuristics, or useful
rules-of-thumb, that are good enough for most purposes. That means, of
course, that we make mistakes, we are misled by imprecise interpretations
of
On 27 April 2015 at 07:43, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
I can define my own consciousness, at least to a level that is sufficient
for me to operate successfully in the world. If my brain and body functions
can be taken over by a general-purpose computer, then that computer
Dear John,
Recently I have found a nice statement from David Hume, one of the
greatest skeptics. Interestingly enough that Hume has declared that
Nature is always too strong for principle, see below this statement in
the context:
But a Pyrrhonian cannot expect, that his philosophy will have
On 4/27/2015 8:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Apr 2015, at 22:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/26/2015 9:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:26 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/22/2015 2:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No, you
On 4/27/2015 10:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-27 19:18 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/27/2015 1:35 AM, LizR wrote:
I think it goes without saying that the whole enterprise is mainly driven
by the
profit motive (although of
2015-04-27 21:53 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Again you said you do know... I quote you again computation can be made
real, but not without using energy and increasing entropy, in other words
not without turning
What if you step into a delayed duplication machine, and the first one out
goes and commits murder at a later time, and then commits suicide, later
the delayed duplicate of you emerges. Do we imprison them, or would that be
punishing them for a pre-crime?
Jason
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:19 PM,
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Again you said you do know... I quote you again computation can be made
real, but not without using energy and increasing entropy, in other words
not without turning to a PHYSICAL process.
And again I said What I don't know is
2015-04-27 22:25 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/27/2015 10:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-27 19:18 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/27/2015 1:35 AM, LizR wrote:
I think it goes without saying that the whole enterprise is mainly driven
by the profit
The argument weak point detector is quite strong with this one :). Well, I
was leaning on Parfit's reasoning that on a Reductionist view of identity,
such distinctions would be arbitrary. But we could for instance divide
memories into essential and superfluous categories and pretend we could
On 27 April 2015 at 16:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Theology is never having to say, That's not God.
While Fundamentalism means never having to say you got it wrong.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:48 PM, PGC multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 5:55:46 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Apr 2015, at 02:30, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:19 AM, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote:
You should both go to jail, on the
Yes that's more of less what SA said - they've got around the clock speed
limit by multiplying cores, but they can't get around the fact that
components can't be scaled below (I think) 14nm without that transistors
leaking electrons - at least not without some radical new technology. So it
was
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Apr 2015, at 02:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That seems odd to me. The starting point was that the brain was Turing
emulable (at some substitution level). Which seems to suggest that
consciousness (usually associated with brain function) is Turing
emulable.
Using an
Hmm... I think you can speed this up if you precompute and stick the
answers in a lookup table. Of course, you still have to calculate the index
of the answer
On Sunday, April 26, 2015, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 12:22:21PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
LizR wrote:
Yes that's more of less what SA said - they've got around the clock
speed limit by multiplying cores, but they can't get around the fact
that components can't be scaled below (I think) 14nm without that
transistors leaking electrons - at least not without some radical new
I tend to agree that the word God has way too much baggage. I feel like
it's used to induce a fictitious sense of agreement. If you said
you believed in God, no one would think you were referring to the material
universe or arithmetic. You would be performing an act of deception on them.
On
I should have added - the writer doesn't know enough science fiction. He
says the SF writers were wrong to invent HAL but then goes on to describe
what is effectively Asimov style robots. Asimov had a better idea of an
omniintelligent environment - as much as anyone did, at least - than Clarke
On Monday, April 27, 2015, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
I tend to agree that the word God has way too much baggage. I feel like
it's used to induce a fictitious sense of agreement. If you said
you believed in God, no one would think you were referring to the material
universe or
On 28 April 2015 at 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You make a rule about punishing people that will deter them from
committing crimes in a way that maximizes satisfaction in the community.
I'm not sure what rules that is, but it doesn't necessarily have to solve
some
On 28 April 2015 at 08:58, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
What if you step into a delayed duplication machine, and the first one out
goes and commits murder at a later time, and then commits suicide, later
the delayed duplicate of you emerges. Do we imprison them, or would that be
That only holds if you were planning the murder before you dupped.
On Monday, April 27, 2015, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 April 2015 at 08:58, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jasonre...@gmail.com'); wrote:
What if you step into a delayed duplication
On 4/27/2015 2:28 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I'm sorry, you were talking about resolution, not screen size.
So what ? 4k screen are new in laptop (and anywhere else), but you can buy a 60 TV 4k
screen, if you want... 17 4k laptops are due to arrive this year, if they're not
already there.
On 4/27/2015 4:17 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 April 2015 at 08:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 4/27/2015 10:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-27 19:18 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/27/2015
You could just execute/imprison the two remaining actors
Well, i thought it was obvious that you can't just walk down the street and
stop them... I didn't realize I had to spell that out.
You don't want to punish the first actor's family because that is
disutility to them as well as, or
On 28 April 2015 at 11:28, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
That only holds if you were planning the murder before you dupped.
I assumed that was implied by Brent's comment that people might be
tempted to use this as a way of killing someone they hate.
--
You received this message
You make a rule about punishing people that will deter them from committing crimes in a
way that maximizes satisfaction in the community. I'm not sure what rules that is, but it
doesn't necessarily have to solve some philosophical problem of personal identity.
In your example, suppose society
On 28 April 2015 at 05:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/27/2015 1:35 AM, LizR wrote:
I think it goes without saying that the whole enterprise is mainly driven
by the profit motive (although of course there have been significant
injections from other areas, little things like
On 28 April 2015 at 08:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/27/2015 10:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-27 19:18 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/27/2015 1:35 AM, LizR wrote:
I think it goes without saying that the whole enterprise is mainly driven
by the
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:05:31AM -0700, Dennis Ochei wrote:
The argument weak point detector is quite strong with this one :). Well, I
was leaning on Parfit's reasoning that on a Reductionist view of identity,
such distinctions would be arbitrary. But we could for instance divide
memories
On 28 April 2015 at 05:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/27/2015 2:34 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 27 April 2015 at 07:43, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
That all relies too much on the assumption that comp is true
At the risk of pointing out the stunningly
On 4/27/2015 4:24 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 April 2015 at 08:58, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
What if you step into a delayed duplication machine, and the first one out
goes and
commits murder at a later time, and then commits suicide, later the
On 28 April 2015 at 04:20, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But computation is not an abstract idea it is a concrete
physical process,
Wrong. Computation can be concretized in any universal number, in
On 28 April 2015 at 05:41, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
Because although we haven't discovered it yet maybe mathematics is
saying that particular physical process (computation that uses energy and
On 28 April 2015 at 05:06, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
No, I'm saying I don't know. You claimed that you did know and gave a
reason for thinking so; and I'm saying your reasoning doesn't hold up. I
don't know if
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 5:12 PM, QUENTIN THE HORSE FUCKER wrote::
and so again you lie.
I knew this was coming, and so now I must humbly suggest you go fuck
yourself and the horse you road in on.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On 28 April 2015 at 12:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/27/2015 4:24 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 April 2015 at 08:58, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
What if you step into a delayed duplication machine, and the first one
out goes and commits murder at a later time, and then
LizR wrote:
Your statement seems quite definitely to say that you do know that
computations must use energy and increase entropy. That assumes physicalism.
I must admit that I do not know what a computation that does not utilize
a computing machine (physical) is. Show me one, and indicate
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Bruce seems to ignore the (mind-body) problem, and to miss that the UDA
just helps to make that problem more precise, in the frame of
computationalism, and to make it more amenable to more rigorous
treatments, ... without mentioning that the arithmetical translation of
If you are punishing the family member the same way you would punish the
perpetrator, then how is the disutility any different?
And correct me if I'm wrong, youre fine with punishing family members or
friends if the deterrence value is sufficient?
On Monday, April 27, 2015, meekerdb
On 4/27/2015 5:29 PM, Dennis Ochei wrote:
You could just execute/imprison the two remaining actors
Well, i thought it was obvious that you can't just walk down the street and stop them...
I didn't realize I had to spell that out.
You don't want to punish the first actor's family because
On 4/27/2015 7:42 PM, Dennis Ochei wrote:
If you are punishing the family member the same way you would punish the perpetrator,
then how is the disutility any different?
It's effect on the rest of the community is different. Someone else in the community may
think, I can't really control
David Nyman wrote:
On 27 April 2015 at 07:43, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Mose people get on living in the world by means of heuristics, or
useful rules-of-thumb, that are good enough for most purposes. That
means, of course, that
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
it is true that IF computation can be instantiated purely within
arithmetic, THEN that won't increase entropy or use energy.
Yes absolutely, but that is a very very big if.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are
On 28 April 2015 at 14:01, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Your statement seems quite definitely to say that you do know that
computations must use energy and increase entropy.
Yes, and without exception each and every time a
On 4/27/2015 5:38 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 April 2015 at 12:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 4/27/2015 4:24 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 April 2015 at 08:58, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
What if you step
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Your statement seems quite definitely to say that you do know that
computations must use energy and increase entropy.
Yes, and without exception each and every time a computation has been
observed energy has always been used and entropy has
On 28 April 2015 at 14:06, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 , LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
it is true that IF computation can be instantiated purely within
arithmetic, THEN that won't increase entropy or use energy.
Yes absolutely, but that is a very very big
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strong-future-forecast-for-renewable-energy
As does Business Insider
http://www.businessinsider.com/solar-energy-is-on-the-verge-of-a-global-boom-2015-4?IR=T
Of course nothing doesa global boom quite as well as nuclear :-)
--
You received this message
On 27 Apr 2015, at 03:43, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I gave you the definition.
You said there was no definition for God.
Then I gave example, not of God which I would assume, but that
some people assumed.
And now you say the
Dear Evgenii,
On 26 Apr 2015, at 22:01, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Dear Brent,
I would agree that it is unclear what conscious agents introduced in
the paper have to do with human consciousness.
For me it was interesting to see that the cognitive science is close
to Kantian revolution
On 26 Apr 2015, at 22:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/26/2015 9:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:26 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 4/22/2015 2:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No, you don't. Reread jason detailed post of last year please.
Who elected Jason to
On 26 Apr 2015, at 22:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/25/2015 11:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A muslim can agree that Allah verifies the definition above. An
atheist can agree that The material reality plays the role of
God,
That already assumes that there is such a role. It's not in my
play.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
Is uploading possible?
Yes, unless the religious crap about the soul turns out to be real, but I
think it more likely that Santa Claus will turn out to be real.
If so, when will we have it?
In one sense we *might* have it
On 27 Apr 2015, at 08:21, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 24 Apr 2015, at 02:30, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 1:19 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
You should both go to jail, on the basis that both
On 4/27/2015 12:22 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
Yes that's more of less what SA said - they've got around the clock speed limit by
multiplying cores, but they can't get around the fact that components can't be scaled
below (I think) 14nm without that transistors leaking electrons - at
On 27 Apr 2015, at 06:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/26/2015 9:33 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 10:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 4/26/2015 8:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Why not move past the denial that some very particular and very
specific notion of God
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
No, I'm saying I don't know. You claimed that you did know and gave a
reason for thinking so; and I'm saying your reasoning doesn't hold up. I
don't know if mathematics or physics is more fundamental and neither do
you.
So
2015-04-27 19:06 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
No, I'm saying I don't know. You claimed that you did know and gave a
reason for thinking so; and I'm saying your reasoning doesn't hold up. I
don't know if
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But computation is not an abstract idea it is a concrete
physical process,
Wrong. Computation can be concretized in any universal number, in
arithmetic.
Yes computation can be made real, but not without using energy
2015-04-27 18:20 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But computation is not an abstract idea it is a concrete
physical process,
Wrong. Computation can be concretized in any universal number, in
arithmetic.
Right, but *who* to punish in order to deter is dependent on these
questions of identity. Suppose there are three actors who are willing to do
this delayed duplication murder suicide scheme. Furthermore, they don't
care what happens to their duplicate. (Perhaps they think of him as someone
else)
You don't want to punish the first actor's family because that is disutility to them as
well as, or instead of, the actor and their happiness counts in the society's utility as
well as that of the murder victim. You could just execute/imprison the two remaining
actors on the assumption that
On 4/27/2015 1:35 AM, LizR wrote:
I think it goes without saying that the whole enterprise is mainly driven by the profit
motive (although of course there have been significant injections from other areas,
little things like the internet!) But the profit motive requires that people keep
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes I said that, and it's a fact that to make computations real you DO
need to use energy and create entropy.
So how can you have an ontology where computations are primary ? energy is
a physical property ?
Maybe
On 4/27/2015 2:34 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 27 April 2015 at 07:43, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
That all relies too much on the assumption that comp is true
At the risk of pointing out the stunningly obvious, *everything* in Bruno's
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Because although we haven't discovered it yet maybe mathematics is
saying that particular physical process (computation that uses energy and
creates entropy) must exist or there will be a logical self contradiction.
Or
2015-04-27 19:41 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
Because although we haven't discovered it yet maybe mathematics is
saying that particular physical process (computation that uses energy and
creates
On 27 Apr 2015, at 13:07, David Nyman wrote:
On 27 April 2015 at 07:43, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Mose people get on living in the world by means of heuristics, or
useful rules-of-thumb, that are good enough for most purposes. That
means, of course, that we make
2015-04-27 19:18 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/27/2015 1:35 AM, LizR wrote:
I think it goes without saying that the whole enterprise is mainly driven
by the profit motive (although of course there have been significant
injections from other areas, little things like the
On 27 Apr 2015, at 08:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Apr 2015, at 02:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That seems odd to me. The starting point was that the brain was
Turing emulable (at some substitution level). Which seems to
suggest that consciousness (usually associated
2015-04-27 19:49 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes I said that, and it's a fact that to make computations real you DO
need to use energy and create entropy.
So how can you have an ontology where
Le 28 avr. 2015 00:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit :
On 4/27/2015 2:28 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I'm sorry, you were talking about resolution, not screen size.
So what ? 4k screen are new in laptop (and anywhere else), but you can
buy a 60 TV 4k screen, if you want... 17 4k laptops
Le 28 avr. 2015 01:56, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 5:12 PM, QUENTIN THE HORSE FUCKER wrote::
and so again you lie.
I knew this was coming, and so now I must humbly suggest you go fuck
yourself and the horse you road in on.
And so here we are again
On 27 Apr 2015, at 11:03, Dennis Ochei wrote:
I tend to agree that the word God has way too much baggage. I feel
like it's used to induce a fictitious sense of agreement. If you
said you believed in God, no one would think you were referring to
the material universe or arithmetic. You
On 4/27/2015 4:07 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 27 April 2015 at 07:43, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Mose people get on living in the world by means of heuristics, or useful
rules-of-thumb, that are good enough for most purposes. That
On 4/27/2015 6:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Monday, April 27, 2015, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com
mailto:do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
I tend to agree that the word God has way too much baggage. I feel like it's used to
induce a fictitious sense of agreement. If you said you
On 4/27/2015 7:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But I think that's just another form of giving up or invoking magic,
Why? On the contrary, it eliminates magic here. I don't see why you say so.
Because it assumes that having found one theory that says This stuff isn't expalinable
one need look
On 27 April 2015 at 19:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/27/2015 4:07 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 27 April 2015 at 07:43, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Mose people get on living in the world by means of heuristics, or useful
rules-of-thumb, that are good enough
82 matches
Mail list logo
