meekerdb wrote:
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
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 May 2015, at 09:14, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm... On the contrary: the brain is necessary. It is the primitive
physicalness of the brain which is not relevant.
That is not what you say in the paper. Hence, consciousness is not a
physical
I disagree. I think this criticisms comes from a misinterpretation of what
the p-value means. The p-value estimates the probability of seeing results
at least as helpful to the hypothesis as the ones found, assuming the null
hypothesis. A high p-value is informative because it tells us that
On 5/11/2015 11:14 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
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
On 5/12/2015 12:33 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I disagree. I think this criticisms comes from a misinterpretation of what
the
p-value means. The p-value estimates the probability of seeing results at
least as
helpful to the hypothesis as the ones found, assuming the null
On Tue, May 12, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
No, what they proved is that physical reality can emulate arithmetic;
False. Just read the original paper of Church, Post, Turing, Kleene,
please. They don't mention physics at all.
Please explain how to build a Turing Machine,
Russel wrote:
*Nondeterministic systems needn't have free will*.
then:
*My point still stands, though. We were discussing the dynamical chaos**Og
was seeing, and Laplace's daemon, which operates in a deterministic setting*
.
The term 'nondeterministic' (leading to 'random?') is a nono in my
With climate change and cures for cancer you need statistics, because
there are no such laws in these fields. There is no equation where you can
plug-in a CO2 concentration and get a correct prediction on global
temperature change.
There's a law where you can plug in atmospheric
On 12 May 2015, at 10:37 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
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
On 12 May 2015, at 10:40 am, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
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
From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!
With climate change and cures for cancer you need
On 5/12/2015 3:00 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Well, the researchers pretended that they knew, back then and are still advocating
regulations rather then new tech,
That's a phony charge. NOBODY is advocating regulation instead of new technology. In fact
there are subsidies for
Telmo,
some long long time ago I was facetious about the climate change (lately I
got more converted)
and asked: how was the study of a substantial climate change established -
say - over the past
30b years? - I meant: ALL of them? How was it for 'other' galaxies - star
systems?
I just did not
On 5/12/2015 3:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 May 2015, at 02:33, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The fact that projecting the film isn't a general purpose computer seems to me to be a
red herring. It was never claimed that projecting the film of the brain substrate
instantiated general consciousness
On 5/12/2015 4:26 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/11/2015 11:14 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
[BM] Why? Have you proven that consciousness supervenes on a record?
Have you proven that it does not?
No, but I have a lot of evidence it supervenes on brain /*processes*/. Reducing
On 13 May 2015 at 11:59, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Chalmer's fading quailia argument shows that if replacing a biological
neuron with a functionally equivalent silicon neuron changed conscious
perception, then it would lead to an absurdity, either:
1. quaila fade/change as
The problem with climate change is that it's a tragedy of the commons -
it doesn't confer much accountability on most people, who if they forewent
all the emissions made in their name would have no noticeable impact - only
those who are in a position to do anything about it could perhaps be
Chalmer's fading quailia argument http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html
shows that if replacing a biological neuron with a functionally equivalent
silicon neuron changed conscious perception, then it would lead to an
absurdity, either:
1. quaila fade/change as silicon neurons gradually replace the
On 5/12/2015 7:02 PM, LizR wrote:
Brent, that link doesn't work for me - did you miss something off the end?
Oops! Shoulda been:
http://www.polygon.com/features/2015/4/13/8371781/homesick-is-a-fantasy-walkabout-in-a-scary-lonely-world
Brent
--
You received this message because you are
On 5/12/2015 5:31 PM, LizR wrote:
The problem with climate change is that it's a tragedy of the commons - it doesn't
confer much accountability on most people,
Right. The free-market solution to a tragedy of the commons is to give someone ownership
of the commons, i.e. in this case the right
Maudlin attempts to show that counterfactuals don't count, as it were, by
bolting on vast universes of counterfactual-handling machinery to his
already unfeasibly large thought experiment. The MWI does the same sort of
thing for free, so if we assume it's the correct interpretation of QM we
get a
Brent, that link doesn't work for me - did you miss something off the end?
On 13 May 2015 at 09:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/12/2015 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 May 2015, at 00:43, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/4/2015 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 May 2015, at
On 12-May-2015, at 7:31 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with climate change is that it's a tragedy of the commons - it
doesn't confer much accountability on most people, who if they forewent all
the emissions made in their name would have no noticeable impact - only those
On 13 May 2015 at 12:25, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/12/2015 6:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Chalmer's fading quailia argument http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html
shows that if replacing a biological neuron with a functionally equivalent
silicon neuron
On 12 May 2015 at 21:53, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Yes, and there's geophysical phenomena to include-in, like the recently
discovered active volcano's under antarctic ice. Melt's the underside of
the ice shelf, while the top side has expanded.
On 5/12/2015 6:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Chalmer's fading quailia argument http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html shows that if
replacing a biological neuron with a functionally equivalent silicon neuron changed
conscious perception, then it would lead to an absurdity, either:
1. quaila
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/12/2015 6:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Chalmer's fading quailia argument
http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html shows that if replacing a
biological neuron with a functionally equivalent silicon neuron
changed conscious perception, then it would lead to an absurdity, either:
On 12 May 2015, at 01:41, Russell Standish 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 recording and playback aparatus. The
On 12 May 2015, at 09:01, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 May 2015, at 09:14, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm... On the contrary: the brain is necessary. It is the
primitive physicalness of the brain which is not relevant.
That is not what you say in the
Well your eyes must be very old indeed, because methane releases go back at
least 55 million years, when the great warming occurred and did change the
climate. Moreover, what are you advocating for a fix for this dilemma? This is
where X crosses Y.
-Original Message-
From:
On 12 May 2015, at 02:33, Bruce Kellett wrote:
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
On 12 May 2015, at 03:54, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Brent wrote
Primitive matter is a strawman. No one I've know, even Vic
Stenger, has held that matter is anything more than the ontology of
one's theory of physics. Physicist make different models and some
have field ontologies, some have
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:18 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 May 2015 at 17:39, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
European Space Agency (ESA) has this to report about Glacial Melt:
On 11 May 2015, at 18:27, John Clark wrote:
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
On 12 May 2015 at 17:36, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
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
On 12 May 2015, at 02:01, Russell Standish wrote:
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,
On 11 May 2015, at 18:41, John Clark wrote:
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.
Free will needs determinacy, but dterminacy does not need
Well, the researchers pretended that they knew, back then and are still
advocating regulations rather then new tech, The validity of a science is it's
ability to predict. I myself, advocate, solar energy and clean energy
alternative research, Now! People who advocate regulations of the serfs
On 11 May 2015, at 18:10, John Clark wrote:
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
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:19:02PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Exactly. Regardless of truth, it is an interesting model that could
well inform us about the truth. Provided it is tractable, of course,
which so far it has tended not to be (John Clark's criticism).
No, the UD does not need
I haven't a clue what you're rabitting on about here,so I'll let it
pass without comment...
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 04:00:19PM -0400, John Mikes wrote:
Russel wrote:
*Nondeterministic systems needn't have free will*.
then:
*My point still stands, though. We were discussing the
On 5/12/2015 12:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 12 May 2015, at 10:37 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
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
On 5/12/2015 1:01 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
--
*From:* Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Tuesday,
On 13 May 2015 at 09:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/12/2015 12:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 12 May 2015, at 10:37 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:23:31AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The final straw would have to be
On 5/12/2015 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 May 2015, at 00:43, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/4/2015 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 May 2015, at 10:23, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 10:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 02:53:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The recording is a distinctly different computation, because they do
not behave identically on all counterfactuals.
And that is all what is needed in the MGA to proceed.
Bruno
Only if it is assumed to be absurd that the
On 12 May 2015 at 22:04, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Well your eyes must be very old indeed, because methane releases go back
at least 55 million years, when the great warming occurred and did change
the climate.
Yes, I know. I've seen some of the
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/11/2015 11:14 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
[BM] Why? Have you proven that consciousness supervenes on a record?
Have you proven that it does not?
No, but I have a lot of evidence it supervenes on brain /*processes*/.
Reducing that to /*states*/ is a further assumption.
On 5/12/2015 12:22 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
With climate change and cures for cancer you need statistics, because there
are no
such laws in these fields. There is no equation where you can plug-in a CO2
concentration and get a correct prediction on global temperature change.
On 12 May 2015 at 22:00, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Well, the researchers pretended that they knew, back then and are still
advocating regulations rather then new tech, The validity of a science is
it's ability to predict. I myself, advocate, solar
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:11:47AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
I should have written No free will = deterministic behaviour.
(= means entailed by, not ≤).
Nondeterministic systems needn't have free will.
You say
Does God give any suggestions as to what we should do?
On 12 May 2015 at 23:28, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:18 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 May 2015 at 17:39, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
European Space Agency (ESA) has
Were you trying to make a point? Maybe that science has moved on and become
more exact since then?
On 13 May 2015 at 01:56, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Follow up,
I just received this news item in my email-
The Washington Post.. NEWS
On 12-May-2015, at 6:28 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Does God give any suggestions as to what we should do?
Regarding the heating of the seas? No, it's already decreed. This chapter is
making the point that this Quran is indeed a message, and reckoning is indeed
decreed, hence take
On 12 May 2015, at 06:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/11/2015 9:28 PM, 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
On 05 May 2015, at 00:43, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/4/2015 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 May 2015, at 10:23, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 10:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 May 2015 at 06:45, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
Of course believing
On 05 May 2015, at 13:30, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Mitch,
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 4:00 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
wrote:
Totally agree, Telmo, regarding communication. On the Bostrom
concept of Sims and, by extension, our reality being a sim, I like
On 05 May 2015, at 02:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/4/2015 11:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 May 2015, at 15:08, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
wrote:
I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you
On 12 May 2015, at 07:36, Russell Standish wrote:
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
On 10 May 2015, at 23:29, LizR wrote:
On 11 May 2015 at 04:24, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You make me say something ridiculous, when I just use a theorem in
elementary computer science.
It's called a straw man argument. It's often a lot easier to attack
a position you don't
On 12 May 2015, at 10:55, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 17:36, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
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
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/12/2015 4:26 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/11/2015 11:14 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
[BM] Why? Have you proven that consciousness supervenes on a record?
Have you proven that it does not?
No, but I have a lot of evidence it supervenes on brain
On 5/12/2015 8:03 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/12/2015 4:26 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/11/2015 11:14 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
[BM] Why? Have you proven that consciousness supervenes on a record?
Have you proven that it does not?
No, but I have a lot
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 08:59:57PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
Chalmer's fading quailia argument http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html
shows that if replacing a biological neuron with a functionally
equivalent
LizR wrote:
On 13 May 2015 at 15:03, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Bruno does make a prediction that can be empirically tested. He
predicts that consciousness does not supervene on physical brains
but on computations. The MGA
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/12/2015 8:03 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/12/2015 4:26 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/11/2015 11:14 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
[BM] Why? Have you proven that consciousness supervenes on a
record?
Have you proven that it does not?
On 5/10/2015 6:02 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Brent, very true in the sense that I was illustrating (joking) to Liz (a terrible
Kiwi!), that the hockey stick, the predictions for a tropical Britian, did not come
about. Hence, the constant name changing and re-selling of global
Yes, and there's geophysical phenomena to include-in, like the recently
discovered active volcano's under antarctic ice. Melt's the underside of the
ice shelf, while the top side has expanded. Now, the climate researchers have
trouble getting to the antarctic waters that were ice free, last
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:15:59PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Not necessarily. Simulated beings could be conscious with their simulated
brains.
In which case their consciousness supervenes on their simulated
physics. This is still physical supervenience, of the sort Bruce was
talking
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 09:46:14AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I agree with your comment. My post was in response to Russell, who
claimed that a way out of the Fading Qualia paper conclusion that
computerised replacement of neurons would preserve consciousness was
that the qualia could
On 5/12/2015 9:28 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:15:59PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Not necessarily. Simulated beings could be conscious with their simulated
brains.
In which case their consciousness supervenes on their simulated
physics. This is still physical
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 08:59:57PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
Chalmer's fading quailia argument http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html
shows that if replacing a biological neuron with a functionally equivalent
silicon neuron changed conscious perception, then it would lead to an
absurdity, either:
Follow up,
I just received this news item in my email-
The WashingtonPost.. NEWS FLASH The Arctic Ocean is warming up.
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some
placesthe seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the
On 12 May 2015, at 02:24, Russell Standish wrote:
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.
On Mon, May 11, 2015 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Russell: wrote :
*...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.
It's irrelevant if we
On Mon, May 11, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
I should have written No free will = deterministic behaviour.
(= means entailed by, not ≤).
Nondeterministic systems needn't have free will.
You say that no free will is caused by deterministic behavior, and
76 matches
Mail list logo
