)
Terren
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 12:40 AM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
On 2 February 2014 06:47, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com javascript:
wrote:
On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
If you don't see how my 'theory' automatically trumps
On Monday, February 3, 2014 3:17:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/2/2014 5:37 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Craig, nothing you have said so far diminishes by a single iota the
significance of the paradox to your theory. It's not so easy to
On Monday, February 3, 2014 3:21:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have no problem with (what I understand of) Bruno's schema, except that
like all computational or information-theoretic schemas, it places logical
objects before sensory
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:46:34 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/2/2014 2:36 PM, John Mikes wrote:
You just scolded John Mikes for assuming he knew what reality is.
Brent
Brent: could you refresh my aging memory and 'quote me' with this stupid
misunderstanding?
It was last
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:19:40 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:14, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz, (and Dan)
When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be
comforting, but it's just superstition..
In your theory perhaps. But then my body
On Monday, February 3, 2014 4:25:14 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 4 February 2014 02:26, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com javascript:
wrote:
On 3 February 2014 12:06, Stathis Papaioannou
stat...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
If consciousness is epiphenomenal I don't see how that
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:17:46 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 4 February 2014 09:29, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com javascript:
wrote:
Does it? You still haven't explained why bodies emit utterances that
appear
to refer to this putative epiphenomenon. Or are you saying
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:51:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 3:54:54 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
Like, wow. Nice picture (I'm tempted to say it makes a lot more sense
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:04:35 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 2 February 2014 03:52, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
It's because you don't listen, and then project that quality onto me. It's
very common I've found. Not everyone is that way though. I have many
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 4:36:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Feb 2014, at 21:12, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:16:43 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Feb 2014, at 13:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 4:54:47 AM UTC-5
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:18:28 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:28:38 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Craig Weinberg whats
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 7:43:33 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 2 February 2014 19:48, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
What do you mean by laying claim to conscious phenomena? In what way
does a brain or body lay claim to conscious phenomena?
Let me restate
are a side view of
experience which represent participation.
Craig
David
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 7:43:33 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 2 February 2014 19:48, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
What do you mean by laying claim to conscious phenomena? In what way
does a brain or body
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:15:26 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 1 February 2014 13:22, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 5:32:49 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
It emerges along the time axis. Evolution, for example, can operate in a
block
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:26:34 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 1 February 2014 17:30, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
It's not an assumption, it is a question. I am asking, what good is
computation without input/output and isn't the fact of i/o completely
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:09:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Jan 2014, at 22:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 4:16:12 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 1 February 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any instance in which
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 4:54:47 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Jan 2014, at 21:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:47:01 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Jan 2014, at 03:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Maybe it will help to make the sense-primitive
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:05:34 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
There seems to be a bit of confusion about this idea. Some people on the
list seem to abhor the idea of a block universe, but when they attack the
concept, they invariably go for straw men, making statements like change
can't
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:54:12 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 February 2014 12:13, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
No. The UD has no output. It is a non stopping program. everything
physical and theological appears through its intensional activity
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 11:32:03 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 February 2014 15:44, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote
Neither comp nor any other TOE can consistently make reference to input or
output extrinsic to itself,
Unless, like mine, your TOE makes I
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:47:31 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
If you don't see how my 'theory' automatically trumps any logical
objection then you don't understand my theory fully.
That is truly
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:54:10 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
I must have lost the thread. This Google Groups format is always burying
threads for me. If I can find it, I'll definitely reply.
I see
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:16:43 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Feb 2014, at 13:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 4:54:47 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Jan 2014, at 21:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:47:01 PM UTC-5
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:53:30 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
I get around that with perceptual relativity. When flying over a city, it
doesn't look like there are millions of conscious entities
Found it!
On Friday, January 31, 2014 11:45:24 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 31 January 2014 01:52, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
The we of individual human beings relies on physical consistency because
that is a common sensory experience
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:48:04 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 2 February 2014 08:41, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:
wrote:
There can be no zombies if consciousness is epiphenomenal.
Just to be sure, I agree with that.
I asked why? because I was thinking at
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 7:56:29 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 February 2014 20:33, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:53:30 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
I
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 6:30:52 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 February 2014 21:49, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Found it!
On Friday, January 31, 2014 11:45:24 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 31 January 2014 01:52, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
) but your
reluctance to confront the real difficulties faced by your type of theory
makes further discussion too frustrating to sustain, at least for me. Sorry
if that seems harsh, but there it is. Over and out.
David
On 2 Feb 2014 02:20, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote
with ideas (and
cannibalizing clipart).
On 1 February 2014 08:40, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-jOYKKp02FSU/Uuv8Dx3eOmI/AdU/bjA76WPypzU/s1600/robotwiz3.jpg
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
On Friday, January 31, 2014 4:09:38 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 1 February 2014 01:33, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:15:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 31 January 2014 17:13, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, January
On Friday, January 31, 2014 4:16:12 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 1 February 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Is there any instance in which a computation is employed in which no
program or data is input and from which no data is expected as output
On Friday, January 31, 2014 5:32:49 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 1 February 2014 01:40, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:22:12 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 31 January 2014 17:19, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, January
On Friday, January 31, 2014 11:03:14 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 1 February 2014 10:52, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Right, but that's my point. Computationalism overolooks its own
instantiation through input. It begins assuming that code is running. It
begins
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:15:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 31 January 2014 17:13, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
It isn't *essential. *Technically, I believe I/O can be added to a
computer
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:22:12 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 31 January 2014 17:19, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:24:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
Why do some people have such a problem with how change can emerge from
something
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 7:14:18 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 31 January 2014 02:51, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Had we not already discovered the impossibility of resurrecting a
dead
person with raw electricity, would your position offer any insight
On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:08:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
Hi Edgar,
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Liz,
Your mouth sure has to move a lot to tell us it's not moving!
The problem is not that static equations DESCRIBE
On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:28:38 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:08:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
Hi Edgar,
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Edgar L
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-jOYKKp02FSU/Uuv8Dx3eOmI/AdU/bjA76WPypzU/s1600/robotwiz3.jpg
--
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 Friday, January 31, 2014 2:47:01 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Jan 2014, at 03:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Maybe it will help to make the sense-primitive view clearer if we
think of sense and motive as input and output.
This is only a step away from Comp, so it should
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 12:19:56 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 30 January 2014 16:00, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:
wrote:
On 1/29/2014 5:06 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 29 January 2014 22:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
The problem
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 11:26:17 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 30 January 2014 13:30, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
What's wrong with the way a cadaver functions?
Many changes occur after death, the end result of which is that in a
cadaver
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 6:46:52 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Jan 2014, at 23:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:34:48 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
NO ROOM CAN BE CONSCIOUS
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:48:55 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 30 January 2014 02:19, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
But how then could any such sequence of extrinsic events possibly be
linked to anything outside its causally-closed circle of explanation
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 4:08:31 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 30 January 2014 16:33, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:wrote:
Not really. Somehow, you conflate levels and points of view. It is a sin
of reductionism :)
You do the mistake of those who deny compatibilistic
Maybe it will help to make the sense-primitive view clearer if we think of
sense and motive as input and output.
This is only a step away from Comp, so it should not be construed to mean
that I am defining sense and motive as merely input and output. My purpose
here is just to demonstrate that
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
It isn't *essential. *Technically, I believe I/O can be added to a
computer programme as some sort of initial settings (for any given run of
the programme).
Added how though? By inputting code, yes?
Obviously this isn't
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:24:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
Why do some people have such a problem with how change can emerge from
something static ? It's as simple as F = ma - a static equation describing
something changing. Change is by definition things being different at
different
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 3:56:34 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 28 January 2014 18:25, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
That's because the theory prevents the truth about it from being accessed.
The theory of comp is blind to its blindness, and demands
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:34:48 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
NO ROOM CAN BE CONSCIOUS.
And we know that because we can say it in all capital letters, or possibly
from the teachings of two
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:38:04 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 30 January 2014 11:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:34:48 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:46:25 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 30 January 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:38:04 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 30 January 2014 11:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:46:25 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 30 January 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:38:04 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 30 January 2014 11:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:01:19 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 30 January 2014 11:39, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:38:04 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 30 January 2014 11:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:13:35 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 30 January 2014 12:09, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:01:19 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 30 January 2014 11:39, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:22:43 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 30 January 2014 12:21, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:13:35 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 30 January 2014 12:09, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:38:22 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 30 January 2014 12:32, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:22:43 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 30 January 2014 12:21, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 7:10:30 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 30 January 2014 12:45, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:38:22 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 30 January 2014 12:32, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:06:03 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 29 January 2014 22:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
The problem that concerns me about this way of looking at things is that
any and all behaviour associated with consciousness - including
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:21:44 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 30 January 2014 10:00, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:46:25 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 30 January 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:23:02 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:57:55 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 11:36:11 PM UTC-5
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:52:47 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 28 January 2014 17:35, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:24:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 28 January 2014 10:59, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that 0+1=1
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 6:09:33 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Jan 2014, at 07:52, LizR wrote:
On 28 January 2014 17:35, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:24:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 28 January 2014 10:59, Craig Weinberg
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 12:31:07 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Jan 2014, at 13:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:23:02 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:57:55 AM UTC-5
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:37:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 27 January 2014 16:07, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Do you think Barack Obama is conscious? If you do, then in whatever
sense
you understand that, can the Chinese Room also be conscious? Or do
On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:57:55 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 11:36:11 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 26 January 2014 01:35, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
But that doesn't answer
On Monday, January 27, 2014 6:15:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, January 26, 2014 5:18:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jan 2014, at 15:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:41:30 AM UTC-5
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 11:36:11 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 26 January 2014 01:35, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
But that doesn't answer the question: do you think (or understand, or
whatever you think the appropriate term is) that the Chinese Room
COULD POSSIBLY
On Sunday, January 26, 2014 5:18:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jan 2014, at 15:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:41:30 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 25 January 2014 00:26, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Tell me what you believe so we can
On Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:41:30 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 25 January 2014 00:26, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Tell me what you believe so we can be clear:
My understanding is that you believe that if the parts of the Chinese
Room don't understand
On Friday, January 24, 2014 12:31:33 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 24 January 2014 01:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:39:08 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 13 January 2014 00:40, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:46:26 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 23 January 2014 03:13, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Consciousness uses computation to offload that which is too monotonous to
find meaningful any longer. That is the function of computation
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:39:08 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 13 January 2014 00:40, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Here then is simpler and more familiar example of how computation can
differ
from natural understanding which is not susceptible to any
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:14:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Consider the posts by Craig. He said clearly no to that question,
making his assumption (existence of a primitive sense) coherent. But
he used his assumption to justify his negation of comp, but that is
usually
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 2:18:50 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Jan 2014, at 15:29, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:14:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Consider the posts by Craig. He said clearly no to that question,
making his
2014 17:08, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On 22 January 2014 15:04, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Computation is the nested, recursive enumeration of uniform symbolic
bodies. The effectiveness of computation derives from its metaphorical
application
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:08:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 22 January 2014 15:04, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Computation is the nested, recursive enumeration of uniform symbolic
bodies. The effectiveness of computation derives from its metaphorical
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:08:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 22 January 2014 15:04, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Computation is the nested, recursive enumeration of uniform symbolic
bodies. The effectiveness of computation derives from its metaphorical
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:26:15 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Craig,
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 2:54:19 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:59:50 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Hey Craig!
I watched the video... very cool!
Hi Dan
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:17:25 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Craig,
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:19:54 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:08:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 22 January 2014 15:04, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:06:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 05:33, meekerdb wrote:
A long, rambling but often interesting discussion among guys at MIRI
about how to make an AI that is superintelligent but not dangerous
(FAI=Friendly AI). Here's an amusing
On Friday, January 17, 2014 6:14:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 20:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/16/2014 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The singularity is in the past, and is the discovery of the universal
machine. In a sense, we can make it only more stupid, like when
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-sum-of-1-2-3-4-5-until-infinity-is-so-1503066071
--
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
/wiki/Deep_Thought_(The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy)#Deep_Thought
2014/1/17, Alberto G. Corona agoc...@gmail.com javascript::
That is absolutely wrong. Everyone know that the result is 42 ;)
2014/1/17, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript::
http://sploid.gizmodo.com
On Friday, January 17, 2014 1:03:15 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Jan 2014, at 03:11, LizR wrote:
On 17 January 2014 14:17, Stathis Papaioannou stat...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Historically, AI researchers did not consider the question of whether
a computer that behaves
On Friday, January 17, 2014 11:30:16 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Quentin,
No, not at all. They are NOT at the same spacetime coordinates because
their clock time t values are different. Only if their clocktime t values
as well as their x,y,z values were the same would they be at the
At least the music metaphor has aesthetic appreciation, performance, and an
audience. Information/computation has none of those things unless we
arbitrarily add them.
Craig
On Friday, January 17, 2014 4:10:50 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
Mostly lurking here… and have off and on for years
That's pretty much what I thought. The idea that the sum of such a series
*equals* 1/2 I think is only one way to make sense of it. Who says that a
rational number is even an option? What if +1 and -1 are absolute, like
'moving' and 'static'. There is no 1/2 moving. Still, it's interesting to
of the universe, in my view, is self-nesting sensory-motive
phenomena...represented by more of the same.
Thanks,
Craig
Cheers,
Dan
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 1:31:56 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Donald Hoffman Video on Interface Theory of
Consciousnesshttp://m.youtube.com/watch?v
Donald Hoffman Video on Interface Theory of
Consciousnesshttp://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dqDP34a-epI
A very good presentation with lot of overlap on my views. He proposes
similar ideas about a sensory-motive primitive and the nature of the world
as experience rather than “objective”. What is
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:02:07 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 13 January 2014 02:35, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
How large does a digital circle have to be before the circumference seems
like a straight line?
That depends on who is viewing it and where from
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 12:21:48 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am
conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in
a special way might not also be conscious. What is it about that idea
that you see as not
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:41:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jan 2014, at 05:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014
Consciousness as a State of Matter
Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014
Hi Folk,
Grrr!
I confess that after
How large does a digital circle have to be before the circumference seems
like a straight line?
Digital information has no scale or sense of relation. Code is code. Any
rendering of that code into a visual experience of lines and curves is a
question of graphic formatting and human optical
Here then is simpler and more familiar example of how computation can
differ from natural understanding which is not susceptible to any
mereological Systems argument.
If any of you have use passwords which are based on a pattern of keystrokes
rather than the letters on the keys, you know
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 10:45:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jan 2014, at 14:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
How large does a digital circle have to be before the circumference seems
like a straight line?
Digital information has no scale or sense of relation. Code is code. Any
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 10:51:37 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jan 2014, at 14:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here then is simpler and more familiar example of how computation
can differ from natural understanding which is not susceptible to
any mereological Systems
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 10:43:41 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jan 2014, at 14:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:41:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jan 2014, at 05:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014
On Saturday, January 11, 2014 11:12:46 PM UTC-5, ColinHales wrote:
RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014
Consciousness as a State of Matter
Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014
Hi Folk,
Grrr!
I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s grapplings
301 - 400 of 3100 matches
Mail list logo
