On Saturday, May 16, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/15/2015 10:10 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 13 May 2015, at 11:59 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jasonre...@gmail.com'); wrote:
Chalmer's fading quailia argument
Thanks, Colin.
I just wonder why scientific observer? Your parenthetic Observer (
i.e. consciousness, IMO a respondent to relations) has nothing to do with
(our) 'science' based on today's levels of knwoledge.
I appreciate your excempting 'ourselves' (the human observer) from a TOE.
Cheers
John
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Bruce
On Fri, May 15, 2015 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
forget about sdtatistical!
*NO. *
Statistics is 'counting WITHIN arbitrary (and that can mean: presently
knowable) limitations. Exceed those and your statistics is hogwash.
*Then don't exceed those limits*.
Try the infinite
Here is another out of the box thinker, Telmo, that has published a book of
course. He is a prof at Stanford University, with a view unlike anything I can
recall covering this topic. Like Lomborg, or Matt Ridley. A WaPo article, none
the less!
Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Bruce Kellett
Are you seriously going to argue that homo sapiens did *not*
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/15/2015 10:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The AI that I envisage will probably be based on a learning program of
some sort, that will have to learn in much the same way as an infant
human learns. I doubt that we will ever be able to create an AI that
is essentially an
On 5/15/2015 11:14 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/15/2015 10:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The AI that I envisage will probably be based on a learning program of some sort, that
will have to learn in much the same way as an infant human learns. I doubt that we
will ever be able
Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/15/2015 10:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The AI that I envisage will probably be based on a learning program of
some sort, that will have to learn in much the same way as an infant human
Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/15/2015 10:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The AI that I envisage will probably be based on a learning
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/15/2015 10:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Bruce
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/15/2015 11:14 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/15/2015 10:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The AI that I envisage will probably be based on a learning program
of some sort, that will have to learn in much the same way as an
infant human learns. I doubt that we
Very, well. It's usually vague when science writers talk about wave-particle
duality. It always seems they use the photon, and never the electron in such
tests. Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
To: everything-list
On 16 May 2015 at 08:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/14/2015 7:24 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 15 May 2015 at 06:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:
meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'm trying to understand what counterfactual correctness means in
the
Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Bruce Kellett
So you think that Darwinian evolution produced intelligent zombies,
and then computationalism infused consciousness?
No. What I am saying is that consciousness is not a plausible target for
gradual evolution for the
On 5/16/2015 4:44 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Bruce Kellett
So you think that Darwinian evolution produced intelligent zombies,
and then computationalism infused consciousness?
No. What I am saying is that consciousness is not a
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/16/2015 4:44 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Bruce Kellett
So you think that Darwinian evolution produced intelligent zombies,
and then computationalism infused consciousness?
No. What I am saying is that
19 matches
Mail list logo
