Bruno Marchal wrote:
There are two things.
1) the mathematical facts, well known by the experts (who even asked me
to suppress any explanation on that as it is trivial for anybody having
grasp the ten first hours of course in that matter) that the notion of
computability is mathematical,
In the scenario we present here, measuring the last photon
affects the physical description of the first photon
in the past, before it has even been measured. Thus,
the ”spooky action” is steering the system’s past.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.4191v1.pdf
--
You received this message because you
Very spooky stuff.
Quoting from the paper Nevertheless, photons 1 and 4exhibit quantum
correlations despite the fact that theynever coexisted.
From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2015
On Thu, May 7, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
When a recording of consciousness is played back does the consciousness
exist during the playback or just when the computer was actually making
calculations? If computationalism is true, and I think it is, then the
answer to
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:14:42AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Why can't playing the equivalent of a recording made de novo (i.e. there
was no original) instantiate the conscious moment for the first time?
That is such a fantastically improbable outcome that Harry Potter
universes are
On 8 May 2015 at 13:05, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 May 2015 at 12:14, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:14:42AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Why can't playing the equivalent of a recording made de novo (i.e. there
was no original)
To summarise the summary...
Hypothetically, we have some computing machine that generates a conscious
experience. Since computation is deterministic, this will create the *same*
conscious experience if we re-run it duplicating the same initial state and
inputs. (For example, each run might give
On 8 May 2015 at 07:59, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
When a recording of consciousness is played back does the
consciousness exist during the playback or just when the computer
was actually making calculations? If
On 8 May 2015 at 12:14, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:14:42AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Why can't playing the equivalent of a recording made de novo (i.e. there
was no original) instantiate the conscious moment for the first time?
That
Color me deeply suspicious. A engineer named Vannevar Bush said, the validity
of a science was its ability to predict. Bush also thought that guided
missiles carrying hydrogen bombs were decades away, circa 1955. Bush might have
been thinking of astronomy, or radio physics, aka how many
Nicely summarised. I may have comments once I've had a chance to digest
your summary (and any subsequent comments).
In the meantime, if you aren't familiar with Maudlin's Olimpia argument
that is also (possibly) relevant. It uses a similar form of argument to the
MGA to arrive at a different
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 May 2015, at 09:47, Bruce Kellett wrote
If a non-physicist shows that they do not really understand the
Standard Model of particle physics, or the Higgs mechanism, then I
attempt to explain it to the in simple terms.
Yes, but not on someone talking always like it
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 03:59:17PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
When a recording of consciousness is played back does the consciousness
exist during the playback or just when the computer was actually making
calculations?
On 8 May 2015 at 10:14, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:14:42AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Why can't playing the equivalent of a recording made de novo (i.e. there
was no original) instantiate the conscious moment for the first time?
That is
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 10:19:48AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 8 May 2015 at 10:14, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:14:42AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Why can't playing the equivalent of a recording made de novo (i.e. there
was no
On 8 May 2015 at 05:14, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, May 7, 2015, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
All computational supervenience gets you is that two counterfactually
equivalent programs will generate the same conscious state. All bets
are off
On 8 May 2015 at 12:10, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Hardly - that is the result at step 7, nothing to do with your
so-called blunders. IMHO, one can go there directly
in one step
I can see no reason why not. The rest of Bruno's argument is just to make
the audience more
On 8 May 2015 at 11:59, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Color me deeply suspicious. A engineer named Vannevar Bush said, the
validity of a science was its ability to predict. Bush also thought that
guided missiles carrying hydrogen bombs were decades
So all these hottest years on record we keep getting are made up?
Just curious.
Admittedly this is from 2010, maybe the trend has reversed in last 5 years?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 10:45:12PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
...
I am sorry, but this just does not follow. The original physical
functionality is admitted to be still intact -- provide, admittedly,
by the projected movie, but that is still a physical device,
operating with a physical
The Climate scientists are allied politically with who funds them, Liz. The
heat of the hockey stick hasn't happened yet. I was being sarcastic via normal
yearly weather, rather then climate catastrophe as the mooks, call it now.
Templeton is less political and thus, more interesting. Let's say
Nobody ever mentions George Soros funding all democrat and leftwing groups for
billions of dollars, or Tom Steyer, or the Blackstone Group funding the BHO
2012 campaign. It is known why. Because the hypocrisy of focusing on the Koch's
is progressive (read stalinist) strategy, while ignoring
Yeah, speaking of that term, Dawkins, some years back believed that there cou;d
be godlike intelligences in the universe. Liz, I am not big on religion, I
respect it as an attempt to problem-solve, but its hard for me to believe much,
in. However, what if one of Dawkin's God-likes, altered this
No, I am not. Cats are made of matter, but not all things made of matter
are cats -- some are dogs, some are rocks, and so on.
I think the major thrust here is not that you need a miracle to get
consciousness out of matter, although that is part of what Bruno is saying.
Instead, his point is
I find that discussions around the comp thesis keep coming back to the
'Movie Graph Argument' (MGA). Each time I read one of the accounts in
Bruno's SANE04 or COMP(2013) papers, or Russell's 'MGA Revisited', I get
the feeling that something crucial to the argument is missing.
The account in
Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 10:45:12PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
...
I am sorry, but this just does not follow. The original physical
functionality is admitted to be still intact -- provide, admittedly,
by the projected movie, but that is still a physical device,
On 8 May 2015 at 14:04, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Which was rather my conclusion. Since the MGA is not a rigorous argument,
it was always of very limited utility -- it certainly is insufficient to
carry the weight of the conclusion that the physical substrate is
Better yet, assume some of its true, and move to solar. The only way to move to
solar is to create superb storage technology, for night and winter times.
Otherwise solar fails. Any demands for regulation of the serfs for their own
good, needs to be met with rebellion, because it then is not a
On 8 May 2015 at 10:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Why can't playing the equivalent of a recording made de novo (i.e. there
was no original) instantiate the conscious moment for the first time?
That is such a fantastically improbable outcome that Harry Potter
On 8 May 2015 at 15:14, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Better yet, assume some of its true, and move to solar. The only way to
move to solar is to create superb storage technology, for night and winter
times. Otherwise solar fails. Any demands for
On 8 May 2015 at 15:25, PGC multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 4:56:54 AM UTC+2, Liz R wrote:
On 8 May 2015 at 14:04, Bruce Kellett bhke...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Which was rather my conclusion. Since the MGA is not a rigorous
argument, it was always of very limited
On 6 May 2015 at 14:19, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au 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
Let's say I have no objection to anything technical done to remediate AGW
except regulation aka serfdom.
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, May 7, 2015 9:40 pm
Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical
LizR wrote:
To summarise the summary...
Hypothetically, we have some computing machine that generates a
conscious experience. Since computation is deterministic, this will
create the /same/ conscious experience if we re-run it duplicating the
same initial state and inputs. (For example, each
On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 4:56:54 AM UTC+2, Liz R wrote:
On 8 May 2015 at 14:04, Bruce Kellett bhke...@optusnet.com.au
javascript: wrote:
Which was rather my conclusion. Since the MGA is not a rigorous argument,
it was always of very limited utility -- it certainly is insufficient to
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 01:21:10PM +1200, LizR wrote:
Another possibility - suppose we develop AIs, and they boostrap themselves
into benig vastly cleverer than us - might they not design conscious
experiences that have never been experienced before directly, as an art
form, say?
On 8 May 2015 at 15:40, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 01:21:10PM +1200, LizR wrote:
Another possibility - suppose we develop AIs, and they boostrap
themselves
into benig vastly cleverer than us - might they not design conscious
experiences
On 07 May 2015, at 14:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I find that discussions around the comp thesis keep coming back to
the 'Movie Graph Argument' (MGA). Each time I read one of the
accounts in Bruno's SANE04 or COMP(2013) papers, or Russell's 'MGA
Revisited', I get the feeling that something
On 8 May 2015 at 13:51, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Let's say I have no objection to anything technical done to remediate AGW
except regulation aka serfdom.
So you wouldn't be in favour of the government providing subsidies to help
renewable or
Hi Brian,
On 06 May 2015, at 18:48, Brian Tenneson wrote:
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
On 06 May 2015, at 21:20, meekerdb wrote:
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
On 06 May 2015, at 21:24, meekerdb wrote:
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
On 06 May 2015, at 22:04, meekerdb wrote:
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.)
On 06 May 2015, at 21:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/5/2015 11:53 PM, 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
On 06 May 2015, at 21:13, meekerdb 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:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
On 06 May 2015, at 23:38, meekerdb wrote:
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
On 06 May 2015, at 21:25, meekerdb wrote:
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:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Telmo wrote:
*...But what would prevent the public servants from being corrupted like
the politicians and using the same trick: this program you voted for is
really nice, but unfortunately it is not possible to implement at the
moment?*
*You might say that then they should be fired. But who does
LizR:
My 1st impact to the 'global warming' fable' (1960-80) was:
My termperature-records are incomplete about the years 30 million
(billion???) years ago so I cannot formulate an objective opinion. Later on
changed position, because of human industrial
activities contributing to technological
On 7 May 2015 at 19:47, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
There are two things.
1) the mathematical facts, well known by the experts (who even asked me
to suppress any explanation on that as it is trivial for anybody having
grasp the ten first hours of
This appears to fit in with Huw Price's suggestion that we take the time
reversibility of physics seriously.
--
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
On 07 May 2015, at 09:47, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
There are two things.
1) the mathematical facts, well known by the experts (who even
asked me to suppress any explanation on that as it is trivial for
anybody having grasp the ten first hours of course in that matter)
Hi Bruno,
Thank you!
Cheers
Brian
On Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 6:18:35 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Brian,
On 06 May 2015, at 18:48, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Good morning Everything List,
Bruno Marchal's (sorry if I misspelled your name, Bruno!) feedback
on my work has
On Thursday, May 7, 2015, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
All computational supervenience gets you is that two counterfactually
equivalent programs will generate the same conscious state. All bets
are off with counterfactually inequivalent programs that nevertheless
result in
54 matches
Mail list logo
