On Monday, May 11, 2015, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','marc...@ulb.ac.be'); wrote:
On 08 May 2015, at 02:15, LizR wrote:
Nicely summarised. I may have comments once I've had a chance to
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 May 2015, at 14:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
..
Now, having read this many times, and looked at the other summaries of
the MGA, I still feel that something crucial is missing. We go from
the situation where we remove more and more of the original 'brain',
replacing
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 11:55 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe satellites and weather stations give a lot of samples of
atmospheric temperature (and other properties, I assume).
Yes, I am not questioning these readings. I believe that 2010 was warmer
than any year in the previous
Have you read the weathergate mails? There you can see how the measures
and the adjustments are done. taking into account that they
systematically DENIED TO GIVE THE RAW DATA, the only thing that they
demonstrate is a parapsychological power of so called scientists to
influence the past depending
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 06:33:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If there is a little hole in the movie, it is locally
counterfactually correct, so consciousness remains, but what if the
whole is bigger? And when consciousness would disappear? It has to
disappear, even just with physical
On Monday, May 11, 2015, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 06:33:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If there is a little hole in the movie, it is locally
counterfactually correct, so consciousness remains, but what if the
whole is bigger? And when
On 10 May 2015, at 23:48, LizR wrote:
It still seems to me that the environment is irrelevant, in that
given comp the brain or computer can be cut off and inputs (in
principle) mimicked - even if those inputs are due to quantum
entanglement. Hence the MGA at leasts starts on a sound
On 10 May 2015, at 22:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/10/2015 7:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 May 2015, at 00:24, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:47:22AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is only a new recent fashion on this list to take seriously that
a recording can be
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 2:14 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 May 2015, at 14:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
..
Now, having read this many times, and looked at the other summaries of
the MGA, I still feel that something crucial is missing. We go
On 11 May 2015, at 09:14, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 May 2015, at 14:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
..
Now, having read this many times, and looked at the other
summaries of the MGA, I still feel that something crucial is
missing. We go from the situation where we
Russell:
you wrote (among many many others):
*...No free will = deterministic behaviour... *
I would not equal the two in my agnostic views. There are lots of (known as
well, as unknow/unknowable) inputs a/effecting our decisionmaking. We like
to call it free will for putting ourselves into an
Thanks, your post clarified the things that were unclear to me.
Jason
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 May 2015, at 06:51, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 08 May 2015, at 02:15,
On 12 May 2015, at 8:25 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:51:18PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, May 11, 2015, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 06:33:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If there
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:29:05AM +1200, LizR wrote:
Yes, although ISTM that a recording doesn't perform a general-purpose
computation, but only - at most - a specific one. But given determinism,
I'm not sure whether that matters or not.
Yes, of course a recording is quite a specific
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 07:23:10PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 May 2015, at 07:09, Jason Resch wrote:
Perhaps one way of looking at it that makes it more intuitive is
that a mirror implements a
LizR wrote:
On 11 May 2015 at 19:14, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
But if the notion of physical supervenience cannot be ruled out,
then the way is open for primitive physicality. The comp argument,
which claims that the appearance of the physical can be extracted
On 11 May 2015 at 14:23, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:43:07PM +1200, LizR wrote:
How can the environment be different if all the inputs are recorded and
replayed?
Maybe I've completely missed the point here.
If the environment cannot be
On 12-05-2015 03:54, Bruce Kellett wrote:
As stated above, counterfactual correctness is not required to
reproduce just the one original conscious moment.
This is where I disagree from the others in this discussion group.
Imagine someone having some definite experience. Given the
On 11 May 2015 at 15:04, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Hmmm. He does present a graph, but looking at the weather over 20 plus
years, climate catastrophe as they now call it, is not happening. The cause
and effect preached by the progressive
On 11 May 2015 at 17:39, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
European Space Agency (ESA) has this to report about Glacial Melt:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/GOCE/GOCE_reveals_gravity_dip_from_ice_loss
What does this mean for Global Warming?
Well, it means
On 12 May 2015 at 15:18, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:06:49PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 14:14, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Why would we assume that it wouldn't make a difference? That has never
been made clear.
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 07:23:10PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 May 2015, at 07:09, Jason Resch wrote:
Perhaps one way of looking at it that makes it more intuitive is
that a mirror implements a recording and playback aparatus. The
farther away it is, the more delayed the
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 12 May 2015, at 8:25 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
It won't be a specific electron that will switch consciousness off
regardless of the order in which you remove parts, as you seem to be
implying here, but rather, in a specific sequence of
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:36:55AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/11/2015 12:14 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think this obfuscates the point. One says yes to the doctor not
because one's conscious thought is a computation, but rather because
the doctor proposes to replace
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:23:31AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The final straw would have to be indivisible, otherwise you could make a
partial zombie by replacing half the straw.
I disagree. The final straw either works, or does not work. If you
replace half the straw, then the
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 03:06:57PM -0400, John Mikes wrote:
Russell:
you wrote (among many many others):
*...No free will = deterministic behaviour... *
I would not equal the two in my agnostic views. There are lots of (known as
Quite right. I should have written No free will =
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:51:18PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, May 11, 2015, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 06:33:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If there is a little hole in the movie, it is locally
counterfactually correct,
On 11 May 2015 at 19:14, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 May 2015, at 14:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
..
Now, having read this many times, and looked at the other summaries of
the MGA, I still feel that something crucial is missing. We go from the
On 5/11/2015 6:54 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/11/2015 12:14 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 May 2015, at 14:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
..
Now, having read this many times, and looked at the other summaries of the MGA, I
still feel that something
On 5/11/2015 9:28 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 15:18, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:06:49PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 14:14, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au
On 5/11/2015 9:06 PM, smitra wrote:
On 12-05-2015 03:54, Bruce Kellett wrote:
As stated above, counterfactual correctness is not required to
reproduce just the one original conscious moment.
This is where I disagree from the others in this discussion group. Imagine someone
having some
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 04:28:16PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 15:18, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:06:49PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 14:14, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Why would we assume that it
On 11 May 2015 at 19:40, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 11:55 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe satellites and weather stations give a lot of samples of
atmospheric temperature (and other properties, I assume).
Yes, I am not questioning
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:42:06PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 11 May 2015 at 14:23, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:43:07PM +1200, LizR wrote:
How can the environment be different if all the inputs are recorded and
replayed?
Maybe I've
On 12 May 2015 at 14:14, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Why would we assume that it wouldn't make a difference? That has never
been made clear.
For the same reason the calculator repeats the same calculation given the
same starting state and inputs. This is surely inherent in
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:06:49PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 14:14, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Why would we assume that it wouldn't make a difference? That has never
been made clear.
For the same reason the calculator repeats the same calculation given
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/11/2015 12:14 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 May 2015, at 14:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
..
Now, having read this many times, and looked at the other summaries
of the MGA, I still feel that something crucial is missing. We go
from the situation
On Sun, May 10, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Russell is right. The modern conception of free-will is deterministic
behavior.
Then a cuckoo clock has free will.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
On 11 May 2015, at 06:51, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 08 May 2015, at 02:15, LizR wrote:
Nicely summarised. I may have comments once I've had a chance to
digest your summary (and any subsequent comments).
In the
On 11 May 2015, at 03:31, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 05:01:59PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 May 2015, at 02:56, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:47:22AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
All argument in math are from incredulity.
Not at all. They
On 11 May 2015, at 07:09, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 09:02:29AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In 1987, when I present the argument, in the room some come up with
similar idea, and I answered.
On Sun, May 10, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
What computer scientists like Turing and others have proven is that if
matter is organized in a X manner then computations Y can be performed, but
nobody, absolutely positively NOBODY has come withing a billion light years
of
On Sun, May 10, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
sigh
burp
You confuse the notion of computation discovered by the mathematicians,
In other words simplified approximations that describe how matter and the
laws of physics can make real computations.
with the notion of
On 5/11/2015 12:14 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 May 2015, at 14:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
..
Now, having read this many times, and looked at the other summaries of the MGA, I
still feel that something crucial is missing. We go from the situation where we remove
more
On 11 May 2015, at 03:19, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 05:12:08PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 May 2015, at 03:07, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 09:02:29AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In 1987, when I present the argument, in the room some come up
45 matches
Mail list logo
