Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 1:24 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
It would be proof that your consciousness could be realized in a
digital computer
In the end it is just a program and the external world is only memory
location the program can access... What you call
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 1:24 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
It would
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 06 May 2015, at 08:41, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 3:51 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 5/5/2015 5:34 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 May 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Where
On 06 May 2015, at 02:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/5/2015 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 May 2015, at 09:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-05 8:09 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net It's
not my theory. It's not mine either... do we have to have
On 06 May 2015, at 08:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:50 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 1:24 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
It would be proof that your
On 06 May 2015, at 08:41, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 3:51 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 5/5/2015 5:34 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 May 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Where does the money go once it's bought votes?
It's redistributed. So after the Koch
On 06 May 2015, at 04:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 10:45:29AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The main flaws in the logic, or at least weaknesses that I have
pointed out, are in the move of the UD into Platonia while claiming
that it still computes in
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-05-06 3:51 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 5/5/2015 5:34 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 May 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Where does the money go once it's bought votes?
It's
On 06 May 2015, at 01:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/5/2015 1:40 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-05 9:42 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Even if you do all that, it will not be strong evidence for
computationalism. It would, certainly, be evidence
On 06 May 2015, at 09:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 1:24 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 06 May 2015, at 03:15, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 10:45:29AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The main flaws in the logic, or at least weaknesses that I have
pointed out, are in the move of the UD into Platonia while claiming
that it still computes in exactly the same way
On 06 May 2015, at 02:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 6 May 2015 at 11:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net It seems
to be a continuing problem on this list that comp is used
for idea that parts of ones brain could be replaced with an
equivalent digital device and preserve
2015-05-06 1:24 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 5/5/2015 1:40 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-05 9:42 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-05 9:08 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:50 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 1:24 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
It would be proof that your consciousness could be realized in a
digital
On 6 May 2015, at 1:11 pm, Colin Hales col.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:21 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
It also appears to me that the computing entity would not be conscious for
the same reason computed flight physics is not flight.
I don't have the
2015-05-06 9:19 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 1:24 GMT+02:00 meekerdb
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 9:19 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
2015-05-06 3:51 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 5/5/2015 5:34 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 May 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Where does the money go once it's bought votes?
It's redistributed. So after the Koch brothers spend $889,000,000 in
the next
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 1:24 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
It would be proof that your consciousness could be realized in a
digital computer
In the end it is just a program and the external world
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2015, at 04:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Counterfactual correctness has not been shown to be necessary -- it is
just an ad hoc move to save the argument.
Counterfactual correctness is the bone of what *is* a computation. To
have a computation, you need a
On 6 May 2015 at 22:20, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I am astonished that you make that comp1/comp2 suggestion, in this list,
where precisely in this list, we can see that the argument that comp1 does
not imply comp2 are flawed---and usually you, like others, you did see the
flaws
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2015, at 04:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
For there to be a difference, the steps have to be performed in real
time, and that notion of real time is not available in Platonia.
Nor in any block universe.
That is just a lazy snipe, Bruno. I have explained how a time
Good morning Everything List,
Bruno Marchal's (sorry if I misspelled your name, Bruno!) feedback on my work
has been instrumental in helping me realize when certain ideas need revision.
I have been trying to figure out which mathematical entity is our external
reality. Tegmark and others
On 7 May 2015 at 09:08, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that the first thing to do when starting a Reductio ad
absurdum proof is to make sure the conclusion really is absurd, and this
one isn't
On 5/6/2015 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
and that human consciousness is at some level emulable by a computer programme. (This
includes the possibility that the brain is a quantum computer, since a QC can be
emulated by a classical computer.)
Maybe we should distinguish comp1 and comp2 or
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that the first thing to do when starting a Reductio ad
absurdum proof is to make sure the conclusion really is absurd, and this
one isn't
It may not be absurd, but its counter to the assumptions of the
Colin:
some 15-20 years ago I read your texts - even made some tenets part of my
worldview text. Now I had difficulty to force myself reading along your
post.
Maybe I got older, maybe your style became more sophisticated. Both?
I still struggle with the 'jargon' of this (and other) lists and took
On 5/6/2015 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Well, you do believe in consciousness as you agree with comp1, like John Clark, and
others.
Comp1 involves the notion of consciousness, by assuming it invariant for some digital
substitution.
But only a physical digital device - not just abstract
Brent - that would be TIME, not 4D space.
I remember the struggle from '1D people' to 2D.
then from the '2D people into a 3D world
and was amused how 'flatminded' the 2D people were when trying to accept a
3rd dimension.
I feel just so 3D-minded to imagine a fourth...?? (spatial 'D' i.e.)
On 5/6/2015 1:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Indeed it is the truth of the high measure of the locally computable physics which has
to make the physical law persistent. That measure is mathematically definite, and this
is what allow the comp hypothesis to be tested.
What measure is that?
Brent
On 5/6/2015 1:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2015, at 08:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:50 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
On 5/5/2015 11:53 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:50 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On 5/6/2015 12:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 9:19 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
On 5/6/2015 1:06 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 9:19 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:32 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
http://www.hpcoders.com.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/mgaRevisted.pdf
The Movie Graph Argument seeks to parlay this into an absurdity, where
there is no active physical difference between a
On 06 May 2015, at 14:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2015, at 04:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Counterfactual correctness has not been shown to be necessary --
it is just an ad hoc move to save the argument.
Counterfactual correctness is the bone of what *is* a
On 06 May 2015, at 15:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2015, at 04:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
For there to be a difference, the steps have to be performed in
real time, and that notion of real time is not available in
Platonia.
Nor in any block universe.
That is
Russell Standish wrote:
http://www.hpcoders.com.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/mgaRevisted.pdf
The Movie Graph Argument seeks to parlay this into an absurdity, where
there is no active physical difference between a conscious computation, and
the mindless replaying of a recording.
It
I think Tom Siegfried did have a link in his sumary of Wlizcek's speech because
I seem to have fumble fingered into the science news article, just now.I do
have an epistle out to the author, asking for his interpretation. We shall see!
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
-Original Message-
The time travel stuff only refers to a computer visiting its OWN past
mental states, as far as I can tell - he is not envisioning that we will
have a TARDIS any time soon.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from
meekerdb wrote:
Pretty good list.
On 5/6/2015 6:23 PM, LizR wrote:
With profound and sincere apologies to Bruno, some people distinguish
these two items, so I thought it might be worthwhile trying to
marshall the arguments in one place, and give them simple names as per
the objections to
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/nobel-laureate-foresees-mind-expanding-future-physics
jason, and all-
Tell me what you think of Nobelist, Frank Wilzscheks' comments, on the Next 100
years in Physics, particularly concerning his views on Quantum A.I. ? Notably,
that this will be a
Such “expanded identities” will be able to comprehend the kingdoms of
substance and force on their own quantum terms, as the mind itself merges
with space and time.
That's straight out of Arthur C Clark - or Olaf Stapledon, if you prefer
the original.
--
You received this message because you
*Self-assembling, self-reproducing, and autonomously creative machines
will be developed.*
Or people, as we call them at the moment.
--
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
Can we see the original version he's quoting from? I am probably being
stupid but I couldn't find a link.
--
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
Very good. Thanks!
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, May 6, 2015 08:51 PM
Subject: Re: My comments on The Movie Graph Argument Revisited by Russell
Standish
div
On 7 May 2015 at 13:12, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Whether it was Stapledon, Clarke, Kaku, or Wilzcek, its go to be a
spectacular view!
Godlike, I imagine.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything
With profound and sincere apologies to Bruno, some people distinguish these
two items, so I thought it might be worthwhile trying to marshall the
arguments in one place, and give them simple names as per the objections to
the Chinese Room I seem to recall seeing in one of DRH's books - The
Systems
Whether it was Stapledon, Clarke, Kaku, or Wilzcek, its go to be a spectacular
view!
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, May 6, 2015 08:52 PM
Subject: Re: My comments on The Movie
Pretty good list.
On 5/6/2015 6:23 PM, LizR wrote:
With profound and sincere apologies to Bruno, some people distinguish these two items,
so I thought it might be worthwhile trying to marshall the arguments in one place, and
give them simple names as per the objections to the Chinese Room I
I don't really see why that's necessary... Every moment feels like it's
now. Idk, it helps to picture a 2d universe where time for those in the 2d
universe is a spatial one in our universe. The 2d universe would consist of
a stack of slices or pages, like a flip book that makes an animation when
On 06 May 2015, at 13:10, LizR wrote:
On 6 May 2015 at 22:20, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I am astonished that you make that comp1/comp2 suggestion, in this
list, where precisely in this list, we can see that the argument
that comp1 does not imply comp2 are flawed---and usually
On 06 May 2015, at 10:06, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 9:19 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
On 5/6/2015 8:54 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
Pretty good list.
On 5/6/2015 6:23 PM, LizR wrote:
With profound and sincere apologies to Bruno, some people distinguish these two items,
so I thought it might be worthwhile trying to marshall the arguments in one place, and
give
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 01:32:41PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
http://www.hpcoders.com.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/mgaRevisted.pdf
The Movie Graph Argument seeks to parlay this into an absurdity, where
there is no active physical difference between a
55 matches
Mail list logo
