). In order to talk to
you I have to make the same mistakes as you and I won't do that.
Look. I am so over this. Just forget I ever said anything.
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 May 2015, at 00:44, colin hales wrote:
Your suggestion
acronym.
:-)
On 15 May 2015 at 09:32, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Colin: wouldn't it fit to call TOE - Theory of Everything WE KNOW
ABOUT? or: Everything in our reach?
I mentioned my agnostic views.
Greetings
John Mikes
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:40 PM, colin hales col.ha
mentioned my agnostic views.
Greetings
John Mikes
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:40 PM, colin hales col.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps better
All posited (so far) scientific TOE are actually wrongly named. They would be
correctly named:
Theories predicting how the universe appears
Perhaps better
All posited (so far) scientific TOE are actually wrongly named. They would be
correctly named:
Theories predicting how the universe appears to an assumed scientific observer
inside it
Or maybe
Theories of everything except the scientific observer
By Scientific observer
to get
the degree. I may call it adjustment, not necessarily a cave-in.
I still hold you in high esteem. Thanks for your post, I did not give up yet.
John Mikes
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Colin Hales col.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:21 AM, LizR lizj
Hi,
I've been watching this if COMP is true then discussion for over 10
years. In that time my thinking has evolved to the point where I can express
what COMP now looks like to me, from my perspective.
Comp appears to be trivially true.
That is, the resultant computing entity would be
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:21 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
It also appears to me that the computing entity would not be conscious for
the same reason computed flight physics is not flight.
I don't have the benefit of thinking about this for ten years, but it does
seem that there is a
Really interesting!
Good to find someone that concurs with a one-at-a-time universe. I think this
will emerge as being right, in the end.
Thanks.
Colin
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
Sent: 23/04/2015 5:36 AM
To: EveryThing everything-list@googlegroups.com
We can change things.
Everything these predatory self-interested oligarchs have (and their
soul-less, ethics-less zombie proxy humans ... corporations) only exists
because we believe it exists. The zombie apocalypse is happening as we speak!
And we allow it because we believe in zombies.
Yeah.. For about hmm Dozens of microseconds ... you had me... On the 2nd!
I experienced the qualia ... that frisson of misplaced credulousness that an
old fart like me needs every now and then
Cheers
Colin
-Original Message-
From: Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
Sent:
Hi Folk,
A little more you may find interesting.
RE: The much-discussed arXiv paper
Maguire, Phil, Moser Philippe, Maguire, Rebecca and Griffith, Virgil 2014
'Is Consciousness Computable? Quantifying Integrated Information Using
Algorithmic Information Theory'.
Hi Russel,
1) Strong CT/Deutch...will look it up...Sounds like one of the
conflations in operation: confusing the natural world with some kind of
computer running rules, rather than something natural merely behaving
rule-ly to an observing scientist.
2) Re: angry popperians...the role of
confusing. I guess that I
understand what you means but the term Computation sounds ambiguously,
because then it is completely unclear what it means in such a context.
Evgenii
On 07.06.2011 09:42 Colin Hales said the following:
Hi,
Hales, C. G. 'On the Status of Computationalism as a Law
should prefer (ii), because (i) is loaded with unjustified,
unproven presupposition and has 60 years of failure.
All other issues are secondary.
I start building this year.
cheers
Colin
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Colin,
On 07 Jun 2011, at 09:42, Colin Hales wrote:
Hi,
Hales, C. G
Hi,
Hales, C. G. 'On the Status of Computationalism as a Law of Nature',
International Journal of Machine Consciousness vol. 3, no. 1, 2011. 1-35.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1793843011000613
The paper has finally been published. Phew what an epic!
cheers
Colin
--
You received this
wrote:
Even an affiliation doesn't seem to help.
Brent
On 6/7/2011 1:49 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Colin,
Any chance that us non-university affiliated types can get a copy
of your paper?
Onward!
Stephen
-Original Message- From: Colin Hales
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 3:42 AM
Hi all,
I was wondering if anyone out there knows of any papers that connect
computational processes to thermodynamics in some organized fashion. The
sort of thing I am looking for would have statements saying
cooling is (info/computational equivalent)
pressure is ..(info/computational
of the neurobiology
of consciousness (Koch).
cheers
colin hales
===
In my PhD I it took 150,000 hours of supercomputing to show that the EM
fields have a whole degree of freedom not in existing neural modelling.
The exact same action potential firing can
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Colin Hales
c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
Can the behaviour of the neurons including the electric fields be
simulated? For example, is it possible to model what will happen in
the brain (and what output will ultimately go
Stathis (Down below...)
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Colin Hales
c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
This means we are hooked into the external world in ways that are not
present in the peripheral nerves. Looking at the (nerves pulses) signals
based
on choices. My research suggests that replacing the fields, emulating
the brain, is the way to go. That's why my PhD is all about how neurons
originate the endogenous field system measured by scalp EEG/MEG. Having
nutted it out, time to make hardware to do it.
Gotta go.
Colin Hales
. BE the thing, don't merely pretend to be the thing to an
observer. I have that level of certainty at least. I guess a word of
thanks is in order.
Thanks! :-)
Colin
David Nyman wrote:
On 1 February 2011 22:53, Colin Hales c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
Colin
Do forgive me for butting
suspect this is not the COMP you are speaking of...
As far as I can tell we're not even on the same page. Maybe others here
are in a similar position and don't know it.
I hope you can help.
cheers
colin hales
NOTE: When I say I want to build an artificial general intelligence, I
say I can build
Interleaved...
John Mikes wrote:
Hi, Colin,
I enjoyed your diatribe. (From time to time I accept some of your
ideas and even include them into my ways of thinking - which may be a
praise or a threat).
Question: Could you briefly identify your usage of science - even
scientist?
The
Interleaved ...
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Jan 2011, at 06:27, ColinHales wrote:
Now say humans are conscious? Prove it.
To which I say COMP is true? Prove it
Been around this loop many times. :-)
COMP is a solution of x - ~Bx, like consciousness, and consistency.
If COMP is true, it
Hi John,
Sorry to hear about your 2010. I hope that 2011 allows your flavour of
feist to resume here on 'everything'.
I am at the very end of my PhD writeup and have been more flaky than
usual here. I was amused to see that I appeared to be advocating any
sort of XYXism or to be an 'XYZist'.
in
Borges' Library of Babel. What would be the analogous ideas in
your own approach?
David
On 12 January 2011 22:50, Colin Hales c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
I confess to the usual level of exasperation. Yet again the great culturally
maintained mental block subverts real progress
for a while. I'll be OK soon enough! :-)
Colin Hales
if you can't formulaically predict/build an observer with what you
produced, you haven't explained observation and you don't really
understand it
ronaldheld wrote:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2198v1.pdf
Any comments
Brent Meeker wrote:
On 10/23/2010 2:37 PM, Colin Hales wrote:
I am pretty sure that there is a profound misinterpretation and/or
unrecognized presupposition deeply embedded in the kinds of
discussion of which Van F and your reply and Bruno's fits. It's so
embedded that there appears
of such a situation, just as an exercise..
cheers
colin hales
Bruno Marchal wrote:
HI Stephen,
Just a short reply to your post to Colin, and indirectly to your last
posts.
On 22 Oct 2010, at 10:53, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Colin,
Let me put you are ease, van Fraassen has
!
:-)
Colin Hales.
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Friends,
Please check out the following paper by Bas C. van Fraassen for
many ideas that have gone into my posts so far, in particular the
argument against the idea of a “view from nowhere”.
www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/abstract
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Colin,
I think we have always agreed on this conclusion. We may differ on the
premises.
It just happen that I am using a special hypothesis, which is very
common, but not so well understood, and which is the digital mechanist
hypothesis.
I think things are more subtle
this.
This is the position I am gradually building.
I am going to go so far as to formally demand a summit on the matter. I
believe things are that screwed up. 300 years of this confinement in the
(A) prison is long enough.
cheers
colin hales
--
You received this message because you
received from 'reality and
indiviually colored to one's personal background and mental-built.
Now I have some remarks - not argumentative mostly (except for the
'Science of Quale') on that beautifully crafted (short!) writing that
reaped the award.
Here it goes:
Colin Hales was named a 'winner
short
(1500 words!) *
Enjoy.
Colin Hales
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr
Jason Resch wrote:
Described in this article:
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2617
This summation of all paths, proposed in the 1960s by physicist
Richard Feynman and others, is the only way to explain some of the
bizarre properties of quantum particles, such as their
Hi,
Can you please send a .PDF or a .DOC
I can't read .DOCX and I can't upgrade my PC to read ituni rules... :-(
regards
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group
will do...
I refute it thus!
-Dr. Johnson http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
*From:* Colin Hales mailto:c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2009/8/12 Colin Hales c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au:
My motivation to kill COMP is purely aimed at bring a halt to the delusion
of the AGI community that Turing-computing will ever create a mind. They are
throwing away $millions based on a false belief
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Colin,
We agree on the conclusion. We disagree on vocabulary, and on the
validity of your reasoning.
Let us call I-comp the usual indexical mechanism discussed in this
list (comp).
Let us call m-comp the thesis that there is a primitive natural
world, and that it
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Aug 2009, at 09:08, Colin Hales wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Aug 2009, at 04:37, Colin Hales wrote:
Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed
refutation of computationalism.
It's going through peer review at the moment.
The basic
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Aug 2009, at 04:37, Colin Hales wrote:
Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed
refutation of computationalism.
It's going through peer review at the moment.
The basic problem that most people fall foul of is the conflation of
'physics
ronaldheld wrote:
As a formally trained Physicist, what do I accept? that Physics is
well represented mathematically? That the Multiverse is composed of
mathematical structures some of which represent physical laws? Or
something else?
Ronald
regrettable snips to get at the heart of it. One thing at a time. Hope
you don't mind.
russell standish wrote:
Nobody is suggesting that brains are Turing machines. All that is
being suggested (by COMP) is that brains perform computations (and
nothing but), hence can be perfectly emulated by
Brent Meeker wrote:
Colin Hales wrote:
Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed
refutation of computationalism.
It's going through peer review at the moment.
The basic problem that most people fall foul of is the conflation of
'physics-as-computation
Rex Allen wrote:
If computationalism is true, and computation is the source of
conscious experience, then shouldn't we expect that what is
ontologically real is the simplest possible universe that can develop
and support physical systems that are Turing equivalent?
Does our universe look
Brent Meeker wrote:
Colin Hales wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
Colin Hales wrote:
Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed
refutation of computationalism.
It's going through peer review at the moment.
The basic problem that most people fall foul
that
artificial light is light.
R.I.P. COMP
= Strong AI (a computer can be a mind) is false.
= Weak AI (A computer model of cognition can never be actual cognition)
is true.
It's nice to finally have at least one tiny little place (X) where the
seeds of clarity can be found.
Cheers
colin hales
1Z
their outcome
projections/expectations reviewed?
cheers
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
David Nyman wrote:
Thanks to everyone who responded to my initial sally on dreams and
machines. Naturally I have arrogated the right to plagiarise your
helpful comments in what follows, which is an aphoristic synthesis of
my understanding of the main points that have emerged thus far. I
this cultural schism operating?
regards
Colin Hales
Jason Resch wrote:
The following link shows convincingly that what one gains by accepting
MWI is far greater than what one loses (an answer to the born
probabilities)
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/05/if-many-worlds.html
The only law in all
Brent Meeker wrote:
Colin Hales wrote:
Hi,
When I read quantum mechanics and listen to those invested in the many
places the mathematics leads, What strikes me is the extent to which the
starting point is mathematics. That is, the entire discussion is couched
as if the mathematics
definitely not computation in the
'computation BY' sense.
Enjoy!
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list
colin hales
*ABSTRACT*. Our chronically impoverished explanatory capacity in respect
of P-consciousness is highly suggestive of a problem with science
itself, rather than its lack of acquisition of some particular
knowledge. The hidden assumption built into science is that science
itself
What you have here is a phenomenon which has been described a lot for 50
years. It appears in the literature in the descriptions of the
synchronous behaviour of crickets, cicadas and fireflies.
Eg:
D. E. Kim, A spiking neuron model for synchronous flashing of
fireflies, Biosystems, vol. 76,
Hi Bruno,
I feel your angst. The received view is a blunt and frightened beast,
guarded by the ignorant and uncreative in wily protection of turf and
co-conspirator. I recently did a powerpoint presentation called
rejection 101. It sounds like you have been through exactly what I
have been
The file. sorry use *Rejection 101.pdf*
enjoy!
colin
Colin Hales wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I feel your angst. The received view is a blunt and frightened beast,
guarded by the ignorant and uncreative in wily protection of turf and
co-conspirator. I recently did a powerpoint presentation
. It is hoped that in opening a
discussion of a novel approach, the artificial intelligence community
may eventually find a viable contender for its long overdue scientific
basis.
cheers
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
to deny self-awareness as a marker of self awareness. You can
use this as a logical bootstrap to sort things out.
I like it!
cheers
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group
Hi,
Computationalsim pronounced dead here:
Bringsjord, S. (1999). The Zombie Attack on the Computational Conception
of Mind. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LIX(1), 41-69.
cheers
colin
Kim Jones wrote:
A representation of a thing (say MGA) is as good (ie as authentic) as
the
Kim Jones wrote:
On 24/11/2008, at 1:50 PM, Colin Hales wrote:
It seems that the last thing physicists want to do is predict
themselves. They do absolutely everything except that. When they
say everything in a Theory of Everything, that's what they
actually mean: Everything
back in boat, assuming merrily mode. It's as if I am rowing,
downstream. :-)
cheers,
colin hales
Kim Jones wrote:
Oh, somebody will stick their head up soon and disagree. Where would
all the fun and games be if some rash, working scientist actually
confirmed something?
Counting angels
Kim Jones wrote:
On 24/11/2008, at 10:29 AM, Colin Hales wrote:
OK. I was rowing my apparently virtual boat merrily down the stream.
But apparently that's not interesting enough. :-)
It's more interesting when you get a barbershop quartet to sing it as
a round - then you get polyphony
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Nov 23, 4:29 pm, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to this article, the best we can do is to VIRTUALLY CONFIRM
something. But since reality is VIRTUAL, according to this VIRTUAL
CONFIRMATION, is not VIRTUAL CONFIRMATION equivalent, in reality
I knew it
Row row row your boat
Gently down the stream
Merrily Merrily Merrily Merrily
Life is but a dream.
Is actually a law of nature...
cheers
Colin Hales
Kim Jones wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html
Michael Rosefield wrote:
And of course you could always add ASPECT 0 - all possible instances
of ASPECT 1
Yeah.. a new 'science of universe construction'? I wonder if there's a
name for something like that? unigenesis?
As I said in my post to Jesse:
- - -- - - - - -
aspect 1 is NOT
ridden maths rapture
rules...something I cannot do.
regards,
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe
Brent Meeker wrote:
Colin Hales wrote:
From the everything list FYI
Brent Meeker wrote:
Why would you take Stapp as exemplifying the state of QM? ISTM that the
decoherence program plus Everett and various collapse theories
represents the current state of QM.
Brent
calls it a 'reflexive monism',
but he does not apply the concept to science itself.
cheers
colin hales
*/- Terminology
/*
*/Neuroscience and cognitive science have a highly developed and well
documented system used to discuss the subjectively delivered, privately
presented
,
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more
NOT be a COMP entity. This is more doable in the shorter term.
So I can think of multiple reasons 'why you can't...X'..Thanks for
forcing me to verbalise the argument...in yet another way...
regards,
Colin Hales
==
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Colin Hales
Hi Marc,
*/Eliezer/*'s hubris about a Bayesian approach to intelligence is
nothing more than the usual 'metabelief' about a mathematics... or about
computation... meant in the sense that cognition is computation, where
computation is done BY the universe (with the material of the universe
).
cheers,
colin
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Colin Hales wrote:
Computationalism is FALSE in the sense that it cannot be used to construct a
scientist.
A scientist deals with the UNKNOWN.
If you could compute a scientist you would already know everything! Science
would be impossible.
So you can
is the most general - the physicist and in particular
the cosmologist.
regards,
Colin Hales
[1] Lisi, G. (2007) An exceptionally simple theory of everything.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770
==
Youness Ayaita wrote:
By this contribution
are necessarily unified scientific
activities. In that unification the answers await us.
regards,
Colin Hales
=
The Principle of Natural Ontic Genesis (Version_0)
It is a fundamentally necessary and implicit fact of the natural world,
regardless
down a wys..
===
Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 03:47:19PM +1000, Colin Hales wrote:
Hi,
RUSSEL
All I can say is that I don't understand your distinction. You have
introduced a new term necessary primitive - what on earth
work... and I am fiendishly empirical to the bitter end...
Before I re-deliver my X... I'd like to leave the discussion at the META-X
level (about any X or about all possible Xs)over to you
cheers
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received
of MON_STUFF have nothing to do with
any other dance. That is the organisational level where the visibility
finally manifests to non-zero...why neural soma are fat - it's all about
signal to noise ratio.
weirdness time over. Gotta go.
Colin Hales
Dear Brent,
If you had the most extravagent MRI machine in history, which trapped
complete maps of all electrons, neuclei and any photons and then plotted
them out - you would have a 100% complete, scientifically acquired
publishable description and in that description would be absolutely no
Hi,
I am going to have to be a bit targetted in my responses I am a TAD
whelmed at the moment.
COLIN
4) Belief in 'magical emergence' qualitative novelty of a kind
utterly unrelated to the componentry.
RUSSEL
The latter clause refers to emergence (without the magical
qualifier),
Hi,
RUSSEL
All I can say is that I don't understand your distinction. You have
introduced a new term necessary primitive - what on earth is that? But
I'll let this pass, it probably isn't important.
COLIN
Oh no you don't!! It matters. Bigtime...
Take away the necessary primitive: no
as science? (B)
of course. (B) is science and has an empirical future. Belief (A) is
religion, not science.
Bit of a no-brainer, eh?
Cheers
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
Hi Stathis,
Colin
The bogus logic I detect in posts around this area...
'Humans are complex and are conscious'
'Humans were made by a complex biosphere'
therefore
'The biosphere is conscious'
Stathis
That conclusion is spurious, but it is the case that non-conscious
such descriptions are logically necessarily impotent in
prescribing why that very consciousness exists at all.
Wigner got this in 1960something time to catch up.
gotta go
cheers
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
-
that will scientifically demonstrate science to us and therefore be
justifyably the possessors of qualia. Upon failure of the test the 'STUFF'
I have chosen must be the wrong STUFF and that will be scientifically
refuted. In any event real science will be done.
gotta go.
cheers
colin hales
Hi again,
Russel:
I'm sorry, but you worked yourself up into an incomprehensible
rant. Is evolution creative in your view or not? If it is, then there is
little point debating definitions, as we're in agreement. If not, then we
clearly use the word creative in different senses, and perhaps
colin hales
BTW thanks.I now have the BAAS paper on .PDF
Baas, N. A. (1994) Emergence, Hierarchies, and Hyperstructures. In C. G.
Langton (ed.). Artificial life III : proceedings of the Workshop on
Artificial Life, held June 1992 in Santa Fe, New Mexico, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, Mass.
I'll
that isn't
axiomatically flawed. Everything is scientific evidence of something.
Scientists are no exception.
cheers,
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post
that isn't
axiomatically flawed. Everything is scientific evidence of something.
Scientists are no exception.
cheers,
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post
to
learn.
If the computer/scientist can match the human/scientist...it's as
conscious as a human. It must be.
cheers
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post
Hi,
What they did was hook X million simple neural soma models to each other
with Y000 models of synaptic interconnects. Very useful for investigating
large-scale dynamicsbutthe leap to 'mouse brain'?.presumptuous
I think. Perhaps... 'Mouse-brain scale idealised connectionist model'
keep looking at
it. The trick is to let go of the idea that 'fundamental building blocks'
of nature are a meaningful concept (we are tricked into the belief be our
perceptual/epistemological goals) ...
cheers,
colin hales
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote:
I'm thinking there's some kind of similarity
Colin Hales wrote:
3) The current state of the proof is 'now'
the thin slice of the
present.
Just a couple of questions for the moment Colin,
until I've a little
more time. Actually, that's precisely what it's
about - 'time'. Just
how thin is this slice of yours
===
STEP 6: Initial state, 'axioms'
(*)
The initial state of the EC axiom set is 1 huge collection of phase related
fluctuations.
The (*) means that all the axioms are coincident - there is no 'space' yet.
No concept of place. The number of spatial
of the underlying reality THE physics and the
physics of appearances ('traditional empirical physics') the
'aboutness'-physics = 'meta'-physics? Seems to me the nomenclature is
backwards. Not that I care... as long as both physics get done... the name
does not matter.
Cheers
Colin Hales
It's one of my favourite lines from Hume! but the issue does not
live
quite so clearly into the 21st century. We now have words and much
neuroscience pinning down subjective experience to the operation of
small
groups of cells and hence, likely, single cells. It's entirely
something!) behind
the 'artificial scientist' that must have 'real' observations.
Cheers
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything
this. I can't wait to play with it... anyone got $100
million? Call me. :-)
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list
1Z
Colin Hales wrote:
So I ask again HOW would we act DIFFERENTLY if we acted as-if MIND
EXISTED. So far
the only difference I SEE is writing a lot of stuff in CAPS.
Brent Meeker
FIRSTLY
Formally we would investigate new physics of underlying reality
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
