Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 18 Jan 2018 00:42, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 1/17/2018 2:10 PM, David Nyman wrote: ​I agree. I didn't elaborate in the interests of being short, Nevertheless, the evolutionary 'selection' argument must, necessarily, rest ultimately on extrinsic or 3p

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 14 January 2018 at 11:48, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 10 Jan 2018, at 20:23, David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 10 Jan 2018 13:48, "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > > On 7 Jan 2018, at 12

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 12 Jan 2018 00:36, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 1/11/2018 4:11 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Jan 2018 04:02, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 1/10/2018 6:56 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Jan 2018 02:34, "Brent

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 11 Jan 2018 04:02, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 1/10/2018 6:56 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Jan 2018 02:34, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 1/10/2018 6:11 PM, David Nyman wrote: If you read the rest of Tallis's pie

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 11 Jan 2018 02:34, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 1/10/2018 6:11 PM, David Nyman wrote: If you read the rest of Tallis's piece you'll see that he criticises the characterisation of the physical environment as encoding 'information' independent o

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 10 January 2018 at 23:49, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 11/01/2018 9:09 am, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 1/10/2018 11:23 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > Searle makes his position even more vulnerable by arguing that not only > are neural act

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 10 Jan 2018 13:48, "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: On 7 Jan 2018, at 12:42, David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com> wrote: On 7 January 2018 at 09:52, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 6 Jan 2018, at 21:09, David Nyman <david.ny...@gm

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 7 January 2018 at 09:52, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 6 Jan 2018, at 21:09, David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 6 Jan 2018 19:46, "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > > On 5 Jan 20

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 6 Jan 2018 19:46, "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: On 5 Jan 2018, at 21:04, David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote: On 5 Jan 2018 19:27, "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: On 4 Jan 2018, at 21:07, David Nyman <david.ny...

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On 4 Jan 2018 20:16, "Lawrence Crowell" wrote: On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 1:44:26 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 8:11:28 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Thursday, January 4, 2018 at 8:26:33 AM UTC-6,

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 5 Jan 2018 23:42, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 1/5/2018 3:02 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 5 January 2018 at 22:52, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 1/5/2018 2:17 PM, David Nyman wrote: > > To take a more realist

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 5 January 2018 at 22:52, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 1/5/2018 2:17 PM, David Nyman wrote: > > To take a more realistic example. >> > > ​I do so love your appropriation of ​the terms 'real' and 'realistic' to > your own theories. >

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 5 January 2018 at 20:41, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 1/5/2018 4:00 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 5 Jan 2018 03:22, "Bruce Kellett" <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > On 4/01/2018 11:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 5 January 2018 at 21:51, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 1/5/2018 6:48 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > On 5 January 2018 at 14:06, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Friday, January 5, 2018, David Nyman <da

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 5 Jan 2018 19:27, "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: On 4 Jan 2018, at 21:07, David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote: On 4 Jan 2018 18:16, "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: On Jan 4, 2018, at 1:22 PM, David Nyman <da...@davidn

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 5 January 2018 at 14:06, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Friday, January 5, 2018, David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 5 Jan 2018 03:22, "Bruce Kellett" <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 5 Jan 2018 03:22, "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 4/01/2018 11:59 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On Jan 4, 2018, at 12:50 PM, Bruce Kellett >> wrote: >> >> On 4/01/2018 12:30 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 29 Dec 2017, at 01:29, Bruce Kellett

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 4 Jan 2018 21:04, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 1/4/2018 5:13 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 January 2018 at 21:57, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 1/3/2018 5:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >>

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 4 Jan 2018 18:16, "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: On Jan 4, 2018, at 1:22 PM, David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com> wrote: On 4 January 2018 at 11:55, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > > On Jan 3, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Bren

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 4 January 2018 at 11:55, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On Jan 3, 2018, at 10:57 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > > > > On 1/3/2018 5:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > >> On 03 Jan 2018, at 03:39, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 1/2/2018

Re: Dreamless Sleep and the Dream Argument

On 1 January 2018 at 19:34, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 1/1/2018 4:39 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01924/full > > This link > ​could serve as quite​ > an illuminating adjunct to the dr

Re: Dreamless Sleep and the Dream Argument

On 1 January 2018 at 15:02, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 01 Jan 2018, at 13:39, David Nyman wrote: > > https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01924/full > > This link > ​could serve as quite​ > an illuminating adjunct to the dream

Dreamless Sleep and the Dream Argument

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01924/full This link ​could serve as quite​ an illuminating adjunct to the dreamless sleep thread. The authors begin by asserting that 'consciousness' - by which they do ​indeed ​ appear to mean phenomenal awareness as distinct from any ​of

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 30 December 2017 at 23:38, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 12/29/2017 4:51 PM, David Nyman wrote: > > On 23 December 2017 at 02:13, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> >> >> On 12/22/2017 4:50 PM, David Nyman

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 30 Dec 2017 21:38, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 12/30/2017 7:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Dec 2017, at 22:06, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/26/2017 6:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Dec 2017, at 03:13, Brent Meeker wrote: On 12/22/2017 4:50

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 23 December 2017 at 02:13, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 12/22/2017 4:50 PM, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 22 Dec 2017 23:16, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > > On 12/22/2017 6:31 AM, David Nyman w

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 22 Dec 2017 23:16, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 12/22/2017 6:31 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 22 Dec 2017 11:22, "Telmo Menezes" <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote: On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 2:01 PM, David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com> wrote:

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 22 Dec 2017 19:57, "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 12/22/2017 2:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > >> >> On 12/21/2017 3:34 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >>> So we are told. But what if someone could

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 22 Dec 2017 11:22, "Telmo Menezes" <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote: On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 2:01 PM, David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com> wrote: > On 21 December 2017 at 11:34, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote: >> >> > So we are told. Bu

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 21 Dec 2017 20:47, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 12/21/2017 12:37 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 21 Dec 2017 19:25, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 12/21/2017 5:01 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 21 December 2017 at 11:34, Telmo

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 21 Dec 2017 20:46, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 12/21/2017 12:28 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 21 Dec 2017 18:58, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 12/21/2017 3:27 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > Hi David, > > Someti

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 21 Dec 2017 19:25, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 12/21/2017 5:01 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 21 December 2017 at 11:34, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote: > > So we are told. But what if someone could look at a recorded MRI of you >

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 21 Dec 2017 18:58, "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 12/21/2017 3:27 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > Hi David, > > Sometimes your responses really puzzle me Brent. What you say above almost >> makes it sound as though you just don't get the distinction Telmo is >> pointing to. But

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 21 December 2017 at 11:34, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > So we are told. But what if someone could look at a recorded MRI of you > > brain and tell you what you were thinking? > > Why do you need the MRI? You can look at the text that I write and > know what I'm thinking.

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 18 December 2017 at 07:08, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 12/17/2017 9:03 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: > > On 12/8/2017 2:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 7,

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

se attributes and understand how they are implemented...the "hard problem" will be seen as the wrong question. Instead AI engineers will ask, "Well, how much consciousness do you want? We recommend more subconscious competence for that task," Already there seems to be a con

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 8 Dec 2017 03:31, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 12/7/2017 5:05 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 7 December 2017 at 21:49, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 12/7/2017 9:36 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 7 Dec 201

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 7 December 2017 at 21:49, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 12/7/2017 9:36 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 7 Dec 2017 15:08, "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > > On 07 Dec 2017, at 10:01, Telmo Menezes wrot

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 7 Dec 2017 15:08, "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 07 Dec 2017, at 10:01, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > >> >> >> On 12/6/2017 1:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> >>> I suspect that this is perhaps why Brent

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 5 December 2017 at 01:11, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 12/4/2017 4:59 PM, David Nyman wrote: > > On 2 December 2017 at 01:57, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> >> >> On 12/1/2017 5:21 PM, David Nyman wrote:

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 2 December 2017 at 01:57, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 12/1/2017 5:21 PM, David Nyman wrote: > > On 2 December 2017 at 00:58, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> >> >> On 12/1/2017 4:46 PM, David Nyman wrote:

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 4 December 2017 at 13:16, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 02 Dec 2017, at 00:48, David Nyman wrote: > > On 1 December 2017 at 17:45, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> >> On 28 Nov 2017, at 01:28, David Nyman wrote:

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 2 Dec 2017 01:57, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 12/1/2017 5:21 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 2 December 2017 at 00:58, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 12/1/2017 4:46 PM, David Nyman wrote: > > On 2 December 2017 at 00:0

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 2 December 2017 at 00:58, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 12/1/2017 4:46 PM, David Nyman wrote: > > On 2 December 2017 at 00:06, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> >> >> On 12/1/2017 3:4

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 2 December 2017 at 00:06, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 12/1/2017 3:48 PM, David Nyman wrote: > > > Another aspect of this is that if, in imagination, you progressively > reduce the duration of your effective short term memory, at some point

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 1 December 2017 at 17:45, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 28 Nov 2017, at 01:28, David Nyman wrote: > > https://www.sciencealert.com/your-consciousness-does-not-swi > tch-off-during-a-dreamless-sleep-say-scientists > > > > > > > Wond

Re: Feynman and the Everything

On 28 November 2017 at 13:50, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 27 Nov 2017, at 04:04, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> Richard Feynman in "The Character of Physical Law" Chapter 2 wrote: >> >> "It

Dreamless Sleep?

https://www.sciencealert.com/your-consciousness-does-not-switch-off-during-a-dreamless-sleep-say-scientists -- 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

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 22 October 2017 at 15:31, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 22 Oct 2017, at 09:16, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > > Neural networks are not about artificial intelligence, but about > artificial intuition. As you said, AlphaGo -a neural network application- > can not answer the

Re: Maudlin's Computation and Consciousness

On 9 October 2017 at 20:07, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 10/9/2017 6:29 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > On 5 October 2017 at 16:06, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> >> On 05 Oct 2017, at 16:02, David Nyman wrote: >> &g

Re: Maudlin's Computation and Consciousness

On 9 October 2017 at 16:12, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 09 Oct 2017, at 15:29, David Nyman wrote: > > On 5 October 2017 at 16:06, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> >> On 05 Oct 2017, at 16:02, David Nyman wrote: >> >&

Re: Maudlin's Computation and Consciousness

On 5 October 2017 at 16:06, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 05 Oct 2017, at 16:02, David Nyman wrote: > > On 5 October 2017 at 13:50, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> >> On 02 Oct 2017, at 15:07, David Nyman wrote: >> >

Re: Maudlin's Computation and Consciousness

On 5 Oct 2017 16:06, "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: On 05 Oct 2017, at 16:02, David Nyman wrote: On 5 October 2017 at 13:50, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 02 Oct 2017, at 15:07, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 2 Oct 2017 1:58

Re: Maudlin's Computation and Consciousness

On 5 October 2017 at 13:50, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 02 Oct 2017, at 15:07, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 2 Oct 2017 1:58 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > Dear Evgenii, > > > On 28 Sep 2017, at 2

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

Interesting, Telmo. My take would be along the following lines. In the first place, I take the view that questions of identity, personal history, localisation in space and time etc. are necessarily a consequence of locally-bounded neurocognition, leading to the somewhat imprecise but still

Re: Maudlin's Computation and Consciousness

On 2 Oct 2017 1:58 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: Dear Evgenii, On 28 Sep 2017, at 21:30, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Long time ago you have discussed Maudlin's paper. At that time I somehow did not get interested. Yet, other day I have got strong feeling that I must read

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

On 30 Sep 2017 6:03 p.m., "John Clark" <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 7:08 AM, David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote: ​> ​ > Actually there have been some quite interesting discussions outside the JC > echo chamber, I think, Quentin

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

On 30 Sep 2017 10:49 a.m., "Quentin Anciaux" wrote: 2017-09-30 11:40 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal : > > On 29 Sep 2017, at 19:39, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:48 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> This thought

Hoffman on Consciousness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY I've encountered Hoffman's ideas before. What he has to say may strike you as somewhat obvious in the context of this list, but it's quite well articulated and his metaphors and analogies are quite memorable. Towards the end he says "Perhaps reality is

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

On 25 September 2017 at 22:34, Terren Suydam wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 1:51 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Terren Suydam >> wrote: >> >> ​> ​ >>> Then we agree that expectations are

Andrei Linde on consciousness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc89m2SaOAc=youtu.be -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to

Infinities

https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-measure-infinities-find-theyre-equal-20170912/ -- 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

Re: Is math real?

On 14 Sep 2017 4:47 a.m., "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 9/13/2017 4:06 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Sep 2017 6:21 p.m., "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 9/11/2017 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 10

Re: Is math real?

On 13 September 2017 at 16:48, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 13 Sep 2017, at 15:05, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 13 Sep 2017 12:34 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > > On 13 Sep 2017, at 13:06, David Nyman wrote

Re: Is math real?

On 13 Sep 2017 12:34 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: On 13 Sep 2017, at 13:06, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Sep 2017 6:21 p.m., "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 9/11/2017 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 10

Re: Is math real?

On 11 Sep 2017 6:21 p.m., "Brent Meeker" wrote: On 9/11/2017 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker wrote: > > >> >> On 9/10/2017 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> So I assume elementary arithmetic; I prove the existence of the >>>

Re: Is math real?

On 11 September 2017 at 15:56, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 11 Sep 2017, at 11:23, David Nyman wrote: > > On 11 Sep 2017 9:22 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > > On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker wrote: >

Re: Is math real?

On 11 Sep 2017 9:22 a.m., "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On 9/10/2017 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> So I assume elementary arithmetic; I prove the existence of the universal >> number(s), then I define a notion of rational

Re: Is math real?

On 10 September 2017 at 18:24, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 09 Sep 2017, at 18:58, David Nyman wrote: > > On 7 September 2017 at 10:03, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> >> On 06 Sep 2017, at 19:45, Brent Meeker wrote: >>

Fwd: Is math real?

On 7 September 2017 at 10:03, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 06 Sep 2017, at 19:45, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 9/6/2017 7:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Some physicists can be immaterialist, but still believe that the > fundamental reality is physical, a bit like Tegmark who

Re: Is math real?

On 5 September 2017 at 01:01, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 5/09/2017 12:49 am, David Nyman wrote: > > On 4 Sep 2017 13:11, "Bruce Kellett" <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > On 4/09/2017 9:15 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>

Re: Is math real?

On 4 Sep 2017 13:11, "Bruce Kellett" wrote: On 4/09/2017 9:15 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 03 Sep 2017, at 18:46, Brent Meeker wrote: > > On the contrary, we can only speculate on a primary physical reality for >>> which there are no evidences at all. >>> >> >> You

Re: Is math real?

On 4 Sep 2017 12:27 a.m., "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 9/3/2017 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 September 2017 at 17:46, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 9/3/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >>

Re: Is math real?

On 3 September 2017 at 17:46, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 9/3/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 01 Sep 2017, at 19:57, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >> >>> >>> On 9/1/2017 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> This leaves, as Bruno says, lots of white rabbits. >

Re: Is math real?

On 31 Aug 2017 23:59, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 8/31/2017 2:20 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 29 Aug 2017 04:39, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 8/28/2017 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Aug 2017, at 02:44, Brent Mee

Re: A profound lack of profundity (and soon "the starting point")

On 31 Aug 2017 18:52, "Terren Suydam" wrote: On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 7:19 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 Terren Suydam wrote: > > >> ​> ​>> ​ ​ All that's necessary is to imagine or simulate

Re: Is math real?

On 29 Aug 2017 04:39, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 8/28/2017 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Aug 2017, at 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/27/2017 10:50 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 25 August 2017 at 21:51, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrot

Re: Is math real?

On 28 August 2017 at 01:49, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 8/27/2017 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> I think it is more pleasing when you can build the virtuous circle of >> explanations out of simple ideas that we hardly doubt at the start, like 2 >> * 12 = 24. And

Re: Is math real?

On 28 August 2017 at 01:44, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 8/27/2017 10:50 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > On 25 August 2017 at 21:51, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> >> >> On 8/25/2017 9:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: &

Re: Is math real?

On 25 August 2017 at 21:51, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 8/25/2017 9:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 24 Aug 2017, at 20:57, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >> >>> >>> On 8/24/2017 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 23 Aug 2017, at 20:43, Brent Meeker wrote:

Re: Is math real?

On 20 Aug 2017 23:16, "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: On 8/20/2017 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Aug 2017, at 17:24, David Nyman wrote: On 20 Aug 2017 2:46 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: On 19 Aug 2017, at 01:21, David

Re: Is math real?

On 20 Aug 2017 17:23, "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: On 20 Aug 2017, at 17:24, David Nyman wrote: On 20 Aug 2017 2:46 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: On 19 Aug 2017, at 01:21, David Nyman wrote: On 18 August 2017 at 18:13,

Re: Is math real?

On 20 Aug 2017 2:46 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: On 19 Aug 2017, at 01:21, David Nyman wrote: On 18 August 2017 at 18:13, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 18 Aug 2017, at 15:39, David Nyman wrote: > > He points at a

Re: Is math real?

On 18 August 2017 at 18:13, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 18 Aug 2017, at 15:39, David Nyman wrote: > > He points at a mug and says that 'representations' (meaning numbers) > aren't to be confused with things themselves. > > > > He confuses a num

Is math real?

He points at a mug and says that 'representations' (meaning numbers) aren't to be confused with things themselves. But what is the 'thing itself' at which he points? https://futurism.com/the-most-important-question-underlying-artificial-general-intelligence-research-is-math-real/ -- You

Re: It from gBit

On 1 August 2017 at 01:14, Brent Meeker wrote: > Existence of an information unit as a postulate of quantum theory > > Lluis Masanes, Markus P. Mueller, Remigiusz Augusiak, David Perez-Garcia > (Submitted on 2 Aug 2012 (v1), last revised 22 Oct 2013 (this version, v2)) > >

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 15 July 2017 at 15:11, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 15 Jul 2017, at 14:20, David Nyman wrote: > > On 15 July 2017 at 09:26, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> >> On 15 Jul 2017, at 06:19, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >>

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 15 July 2017 at 09:26, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 15 Jul 2017, at 06:19, Brent Meeker wrote: > > >> >> On 7/14/2017 7:22 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> I think Brent has commented that consciousness needs a world to be >>> conscious of -- that doesn't, of itself,

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 15 July 2017 at 05:19, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 7/14/2017 7:22 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> I think Brent has commented that consciousness needs a world to be >> conscious of -- that doesn't, of itself, constrain that world in any way. >> Even more so if the

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 15 July 2017 at 03:22, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 15/07/2017 10:34 am, David Nyman wrote: > > On 15 July 2017 at 00:46, Bruce Kellett < <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> >> On 15/0

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 15 July 2017 at 00:46, Bruce Kellett <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > On 15/07/2017 4:00 am, David Nyman wrote: > > On 13 July 2017 at 12:12, Bruce Kellett < <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > >> [Wa

Re: Wallace on non-locality

; > On 7/06/2017 9:24 am, David Nyman wrote: > > On 6 June 2017 at 01:46, Bruce Kellett < <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> > bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> On 6/06/2017 10:21 am, David Nyman wrote: >> >> >> ​Bruce, I'm reading The Emergent Multive

Re: What lead to free-will denial?

On 30 Jun 2017 16:38, "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: On 29 Jun 2017, at 17:26, David Nyman wrote: On 29 Jun 2017 15:58, "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: On 28 Jun 2017, at 16:03, John Clark wrote: snip >> Unicorns don't exist, &g

Re: What lead to free-will denial?

On 29 Jun 2017 15:58, "Bruno Marchal" wrote: On 28 Jun 2017, at 16:03, John Clark wrote: snip >> Unicorns don't exist, > > >In which theory? Oh for christ's sake! This is really getting silly, now existence depends on theories. Of course not. But *asserting* an

Re: “Could a Quantum Computer Have Subjective Experience?”

On 24 June 2017 at 11:36, Russell Standish wrote: > On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 06:29:54PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 24/06/2017 5:23 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > OK, it was possibly the case that you gave arguments earlier in the > > book. But I was going on

Re: “Could a Quantum Computer Have Subjective Experience?”

On 22 Jun 2017 2:46 a.m., "Bruce Kellett" <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: On 22/06/2017 10:32 am, David Nyman wrote: On 22 Jun 2017 00:31, "Bruce Kellett" < <bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: On 22/06/2017 1:44 am, Bruno Marc

Re: “Could a Quantum Computer Have Subjective Experience?”

t; Everett QM is itself derivable from (intensional) arithmetic. > In that case you shouldn't be making pronouncements about what the physics means until you have completed that derivation from arithmetic. Also, you seem to be confusing the inter-subjective 3p view with Tegmark's >> bi

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 11 Jun 2017 16:44, "Bruno Marchal" <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: On 11 Jun 2017, at 12:24, David Nyman wrote: On 11 June 2017 at 10:14, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 09 Jun 2017, at 20:21, David Nyman wrote: > > On 9 June 2017 at 12:34, Bruno

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 11 June 2017 at 10:14, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 09 Jun 2017, at 20:21, David Nyman wrote: > > On 9 June 2017 at 12:34, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > >> >> On 08 Jun 2017, at 02:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 9 June 2017 at 12:34, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 08 Jun 2017, at 02:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On 7/06/2017 10:38 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 07 Jun 2017, at 11:42, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> On 7/06/2017 7:09 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 06 Jun 2017, at

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >