happen to be working on a book and thus
want to be sure that my own hypothesis is not junk.
Onward!
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: 1Z
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 4:13 PM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: A comment on Mauldin's paper Computation and Consciousness
On Jan 25, 9:04
On Feb 1, 12:41 am, David Shipman zzship...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 30, 4:13 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jan 25, 9:04 am, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Dear Bruno and Friends,
While we are considering the idea of “causal efficacy”
here and not hidden
On 2/14/2011 5:03 PM, 1Z wrote:
This isn't true, is it?
So we have two particles (A and B) that are entangled.
Entanglement is never destroyed, it is only obscured by subsequent
interactions with the environment.
Particle A goes zooming off into outer space.
10 years later,
-
From: Brent Meeker
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 11:20 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A comment on Mauldin's paper “Computation and Consciousness”
Note that the kind of entanglement you're talking about is the same as
randomness. Bohm's version of QM makes
?
-Original Message- From: David Shipman
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 7:41 PM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: A comment on Mauldin's paper “Computation and Consciousness”
On Jan 30, 4:13 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jan 25, 9:04 am, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote
On Jan 30, 4:13 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jan 25, 9:04 am, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Dear Bruno and Friends,
While we are considering the idea of “causal efficacy”
here and not hidden variable theories, the fact that it
has been experimentally verified
on Mauldin's paper “Computation and Consciousness”
On Jan 30, 4:13 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jan 25, 9:04 am, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Dear Bruno and Friends,
While we are considering the idea of “causal efficacy”
here and not hidden variable theories
in the eyes of birds.
Don't they have a higher average body temperature than humans?
-Original Message- From: David Shipman
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 7:41 PM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: A comment on Mauldin's paper “Computation and Consciousness”
On Jan 30, 4:13 pm, 1Z
On 30 Jan 2011, at 07:41, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Rex,
Well here I disagree (with Wikipedia, not with Turing, although he is
responsible for this widespread misconception).
Well, I'll buy that, I reckon. Though the usage of
On 30 Jan 2011, at 08:14, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/29/2011 10:41 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Rex,
Well here I disagree (with Wikipedia, not with Turing, although he
is
responsible for this widespread misconception).
On Jan 25, 9:04 am, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Dear Bruno and Friends,
While we are considering the idea of “causal efficacy” here and not
hidden variable theories, the fact that it has been experimentally verified
that Nature violates the principle Locality.
straw man argument. I also happen to be working on a book and thus
want to be sure that my own hypothesis is not junk.
Onward!
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: 1Z
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 4:13 PM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: A comment on Mauldin's paper “Computation
On 29 Jan 2011, at 04:59, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 28 Jan 2011, at 18:48, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 8:34 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
What
Rex,
Well here I disagree (with Wikipedia, not with Turing, although he is
responsible for this widespread misconception).
The discovery of the universal machine by Turing is the discovery of a
finite Turing machine capable of emulating all the other machine from
a number description (a
Rex, Brent,
On 1/28/2011 7:59 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 28 Jan 2011, at 18:48, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 8:34 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 1/27/2011 8:34 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
I would have thought that dreams would be a pretty clear
counter-example to the claim that consciousness requires a world to
interact with...?
Do you think you could have
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 1/28/2011 7:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
On 1/27/2011 10:08 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Brent
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Rex,
Well here I disagree (with Wikipedia, not with Turing, although he is
responsible for this widespread misconception).
Well, I'll buy that, I reckon. Though the usage of the term infinite
tape is pretty widespread.
On 1/29/2011 10:41 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Rex,
Well here I disagree (with Wikipedia, not with Turing, although he is
responsible for this widespread misconception).
Well, I'll buy that, I reckon. Though the usage
On 28 Jan 2011, at 01:58, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 2:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2011, at 22:12, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 10:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jan 2011, at 15:47, Stephen Paul King wrote:
snip
Mathematical structures do not “do”
On 1/27/2011 8:34 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
What does locally mean in this context? I doubt that consciousness is
strictly local in the physical sense; it requires and world to interact
with.
I would have
On 1/27/2011 8:34 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
What does locally mean in this context? I doubt that consciousness is
strictly local in the physical sense; it requires and world to interact
with.
I would have
On 1/27/2011 10:08 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
But if the
emulation attempts to be local then it must include inherent randomness -
which I think is not Turing computable.
The Turing machine could draw the required
On 28 Jan 2011, at 18:48, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 8:34 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Brent
Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
What does locally mean in this context? I doubt that
consciousness is
strictly local in the physical sense; it requires and
On 28 Jan 2011, at 18:52, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 10:08 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Brent
Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
But if the
emulation attempts to be local then it must include inherent
randomness -
which I think is not Turing
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 1/27/2011 10:08 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
But if the
emulation attempts to be local then it must include inherent randomness -
which I
On 1/28/2011 7:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 1/27/2011 10:08 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
But if the
emulation attempts to be
On 1/28/2011 7:59 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Jan 2011, at 18:48, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 8:34 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
On 25 Jan 2011, at 15:47, Stephen Paul King wrote:
The supervenience thesis is separate from the Turing thesis and
Mauldin does a good job in distinguishing them.
Just to be clear, what Maudlin call supervenience thesis is what I
called physical supervenience thesis, to distinguish
On 1/27/2011 10:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jan 2011, at 15:47, Stephen Paul King wrote:
The supervenience thesis is separate from the Turing thesis and
Mauldin does a good job in distinguishing them.
Just to be clear, what Maudlin call supervenience thesis is what I
called
On 27 Jan 2011, at 22:12, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 10:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jan 2011, at 15:47, Stephen Paul King wrote:
snip
Mathematical structures do not “do” anything, they merely
exist, if at all! We can use verbs to describe relations between
nouns but
Hi Brent and Bruno,
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 5:23 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A comment on Mauldin's paper “Computation and Consciousness”
On 27 Jan 2011, at 22:12, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 10:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote
On 1/27/2011 2:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2011, at 22:12, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 10:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jan 2011, at 15:47, Stephen Paul King wrote:
snip
Mathematical structures do not “do” anything, they merely
exist, if at all! We can use verbs
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
What does locally mean in this context? I doubt that consciousness is
strictly local in the physical sense; it requires and world to interact
with.
I would have thought that dreams would be a pretty clear
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
But if the
emulation attempts to be local then it must include inherent randomness -
which I think is not Turing computable.
The Turing machine could draw the required randomness from a tape of
random bits, couldn't
Dear Bruno and Friends,
I was re-reading the Mauldin paper again and something struck me that I had
not noticed before. I hope that I am not way over my head on this one, but I
think that there is something of a straw man in Mauldin’s definition of the
supervenience thesis! He assumes the
Hi Stephen,
If the non active piece of matter plays a role in the computation,
it means that we have not choose the correct substitution level. For
example the brain would be a quantum computer. But quantum computer
are Turing emulable, and so its work is emulated by the Universal
or copy its state.
I just want to understand if its possible to model a plurality of
computations.
Onward!
Stephen
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 6:24 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A comment on Mauldin's paper “Computation and Consciousness”
Hi
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: A comment on Mauldin's paper “Computation and
Consciousness”
Hi Stephen,
If the non active piece of matter plays a role in the computation, it
means that we have not choose the correct substitution level. For example
the brain would
From: Quentin Anciaux
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 8:07 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A comment on Mauldin's paper “Computation and Consciousness”
Hi Stephen,
Well the asumption is that the mind is turing emulable... a turing machine is a
mathematical object. When I wrote
40 matches
Mail list logo
