On 21 Feb 2014, at 00:30, LizR wrote:
On 21 February 2014 00:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Thanks for telling me, so that I avoid any paranoia, like did I say
something impolite or what
Never that!
OK, thanks. Best,
Bruno
--
You received this message because you
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 20:45:39 +0100
On 20 Feb 2014, at 16:59, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I can say today that I am the guy having
2014-02-19 0:22 GMT+01:00 David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com:
On 18 February 2014 22:34, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 02:06:37PM +, David Nyman wrote:
I must admit it hasn't been entirely clear to me why you decided that
the
MGA can go through
Liz, Others,
I was waiting for you to answer the last questions to proceed. Any
problem?
I give the correction of the last exercise.
On 14 Feb 2014, at 19:18, Bruno Marchal wrote:
snip
On 13 Feb 2014, at 22:23, LizR wrote:
On 14 February 2014 07:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 18/02/2014, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The deficit is that it won't be alive. The parts won't integrate into a
whole. Every examination will yield only more levels of where the copy is
incomplete. The primary sequence of DNA is right, but the tertiary protein
folding
On 18/02/2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com javascript:; wrote:
I think if I say consciousness is an epiphenomenon of biochemistry I
should also say that life is.
And should you not go on to say that biochemistry is an epiphenomenon of
physics and physics is an epiphenomenon of
On 19 February 2014 16:18, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm making a case for reductionism. If biochemistry necessarily leads to
consciousness then I don't think this is any different to the situation
where biochemistry necessarily leads to life.
OK, I think you're making a
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:12:52 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 18/02/2014, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
The deficit is that it won't be alive. The parts won't integrate into a
whole. Every examination will yield only more levels of where the copy
is
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:36:31 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 February 2014 16:18, Stathis Papaioannou stat...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I'm making a case for reductionism. If biochemistry necessarily leads to
consciousness then I don't think this is any different to the
On 19 Feb 2014, at 17:18, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 18/02/2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
I think if I say consciousness is an epiphenomenon of
biochemistry I
should also say that life is.
And should you not go on to say that biochemistry is an
epiphenomenon of
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:46:40 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Feb 2014, at 17:18, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 18/02/2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
I think if I say consciousness is an epiphenomenon of biochemistry I
should also say that life is.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Be consistent reject MWI on the same ground... don't bother adding the
argument that you can't meet your doppelganger,
So you want me to defend my case but specifically ask me not to use logic
in doing so. No can do.
2014-02-19 19:36 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
Be consistent reject MWI on the same ground... don't bother adding the
argument that you can't meet your doppelganger,
So you want me to defend my case but
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:12:52 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 18/02/2014, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
The deficit is that it won't be alive. The parts won't integrate into a
whole. Every
On Thursday, February 20, 2014, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Feb 2014, at 17:18, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 18/02/2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
I think if I say consciousness is an epiphenomenon of biochemistry I
should also say that life is.
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:28:15 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:12:52 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 18/02/2014, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
The
Chris.
From: allco...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:53:46 +0100
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2014-02-19 19:36 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
You are looking at a geiger counter pointing at a radioactive source. On
average, it clicks about once every other second. Do you expect to hear it
click in the next second?
What is wrong with the above question? It seems to me exactly equivalent in
probability terms to do you expect to see
:53:46 +0100
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2014-02-19 19:36 GMT+01:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
Be consistent reject MWI on the same
' in the mistaken belief that it has a
legitimate place in Everettian MWI.
All the best
Chris.
--
From: allco...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:53:46 +0100
Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On 17 Feb 2014, at 19:49, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
what exactly is the question? Be specific and DON'T HIDE BEHIND
PRONOUNS WITH NO CLEAR REFERENT.
The question is what do you [blah blah]
DON'T HIDE BEHIND PRONOUNS
On 17 February 2014 17:46, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Feb 2014, at 14:13, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 16:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The whole schema - physics included - would then have to be
considered an epiphenomenon of some inaccessible
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Feb 2014, at 19:49, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
what exactly is the question? Be specific and DON'T HIDE BEHIND
PRONOUNS WITH NO CLEAR REFERENT.
On 17 February 2014 06:07, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 February 2014 08:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/16/2014 5:14 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 00:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't think so. We know where the values
On 18 Feb 2014, at 15:06, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 17:46, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Feb 2014, at 14:13, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 16:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The whole schema - physics included - would then have to be
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 02:06:37PM +, David Nyman wrote:
I must admit it hasn't been entirely clear to me why you decided that the
MGA can go through without addressing the counterfactuals, especially since
Maudlin felt he had to address them in his alternative formulation. I
appreciate
On 18 February 2014 22:34, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 02:06:37PM +, David Nyman wrote:
I must admit it hasn't been entirely clear to me why you decided that the
MGA can go through without addressing the counterfactuals, especially
since
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:22:55PM +, David Nyman wrote:
On 18 February 2014 22:34, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 02:06:37PM +, David Nyman wrote:
I must admit it hasn't been entirely clear to me why you decided that the
MGA can go
On 19 February 2014 00:15, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:22:55PM +, David Nyman wrote:
On 18 February 2014 22:34, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 02:06:37PM +, David Nyman wrote:
I must admit
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:39:59AM +, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 February 2014 00:15, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:22:55PM +, David Nyman wrote:
On 18 February 2014 22:34, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Tue, Feb
On 19 February 2014 01:09, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Anyway, hopefully I can get to that paper so that we can discuss this more.
I look forward to it :)
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
On 18 Feb 2014, at 19:52, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:33 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
if Mr. he is the fellow who is experiencing Helsinki right now
then the correct prediction would be Mr. he will see neither
Washington NOR Moscow.
Simple calculus
On 16 Feb 2014, at 21:56, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 16:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 15:32, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 09:39, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
snip
From thought cannot act on matter we arrive at thought
On 16 Feb 2014, at 22:32, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:18:54 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 17:48, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, but then you would be faced with the questions posed by the UDA/
MWI arguments, because there would then
On 17 Feb 2014, at 00:44, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:23:11 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 18:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:58:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On
On 17 February 2014 06:07, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
I and I would agree with Stathis - except for the merely. I think
Bruno
was right when he observed that epi doesn't mean anything in this
context.
Stathis doesn't think that consciousness is separable from
On 17 February 2014 09:02, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
May be I should not have, as we can use the intensional Church's thesis,
for the UD. But we can formally make a difference, and some can exploit it.
In fact the difference between computation and computability is more
general
On 16 February 2014 16:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The whole schema - physics included - would then have to be considered
an epiphenomenon of some inaccessible ur-physics.
Exactly.
I'm not sure that it's exactly a contradiction just because of that,
though, as in practice
On 2/16/2014 10:07 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I can't imagine all the biochemistry being
there but life absent, but I can imagine all the biochemistry being
there but consciousness absent (though further reasoning may show that
that to be impossible). But maybe that is just a failure of
On 17 Feb 2014, at 14:13, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 16:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The whole schema - physics included - would then have to be
considered an epiphenomenon of some inaccessible ur-physics.
Exactly.
I'm not sure that it's exactly a contradiction
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
what exactly is the question? Be specific and DON'T HIDE BEHIND
PRONOUNS WITH NO CLEAR REFERENT.
The question is what do you [blah blah]
DON'T HIDE BEHIND PRONOUNS WITH NO CLEAR REFERENT.
You = the unique 1p
On Monday, February 17, 2014 12:44:43 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:45:13 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:49:56 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 16 February 2014 01:32, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
No, the copy of the experience has no belief or experience at all. The
On 16 Feb 2014, at 00:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:43:29 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 15 February 2014 18:32, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
You can't copy awareness. Awareness is what is uncopyable, not just
because awareness is special, but
On 15 Feb 2014, at 19:30, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
The 3-1 view is the 3p view on the 1p views, note the plural,
after the duplication.
That is far more convoluted than it need to be, it's really not all
that
On 16 Feb 2014, at 05:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:40:17 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 16 February 2014 01:41, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
To extend your metaphor, in my view, since the characters in a
drama can
build an LCD screen as part of
On 15 Feb 2014, at 14:14, David Nyman wrote:
On 15 February 2014 02:45, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
If that is so (and I agree that it is, since I am not a physical
eliminativist) it is still consistent with the physical processes
still being *sufficient* to produce
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:29:09 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 00:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:43:29 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 15 February 2014 18:32, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
You can't copy awareness.
On 16 February 2014 12:45, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Copy and self-copy are different, for machines too, but in the case under
study, this does not entail any observable difference, and if you are
right, it means that the copy doll will be a zombie.
The reproduction of the
On 16 February 2014 03:36, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
The difference between the movie and the conscious entity is that the
movie has meaning to an external observer, while the conscious entity
creates its own observer and hence its own meaning.
Yes, that's what I said. OK,
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:45:13 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:49:56 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 16 February 2014 01:32, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 February 2014 14:06, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If there were some way to copy a fully developed body so that it lived, it
would still not be a copy of the original, but just a new original that
reminds us of the copy from the outside perspective.
Ah, but then you would
On 16 February 2014 09:39, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If the foregoing is to make any sense, we are forced to the view that all
references to such dramatis personae are, in the end, merely a manner of
speaking, and that consequently *all* such gross or macroscopic references
are,
On 16 Feb 2014, at 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:29:09 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 00:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:43:29 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 15 February 2014 18:32, Craig Weinberg
On 16 Feb 2014, at 15:32, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 09:39, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If the foregoing is to make any sense, we are forced to the view
that all references to such dramatis personae are, in the end,
merely a manner of speaking, and that consequently
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
A typical observation will be the diary of the guy in W assess that
he is in W, and (perhaps) that he could not have predicted that,
That is incorrect, the Helsinki Man could have successfully predicted
that the Washington
On 2/15/2014 7:40 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 16 February 2014 01:41, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
To extend your metaphor, in my view, since the characters in a drama can
build an LCD screen as part of the show, but an LCD screen can't build a
show as part of its function,
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:12:03 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 14:06, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
If there were some way to copy a fully developed body so that it lived, it
would still not be a copy of the original, but just a new original
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:58:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:29:09 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 00:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:43:29 PM UTC-5,
On 16 Feb 2014, at 17:46, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
A typical observation will be the diary of the guy in W assess
that he is in W, and (perhaps) that he could not have predicted that,
That is incorrect, the Helsinki Man could have
On 16 February 2014 17:48, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, but then you would be faced with the questions posed by the UDA/MWI
arguments, because there would then be two conscious originals who
claimed equal possession of the same history to that point. That is all you
need for
On 16 Feb 2014, at 18:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:58:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:29:09 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 00:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On
On 16 February 2014 17:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't disagree, but I think this formulation leaves meaning as
mysterious and one may ask why consciousness creates meaning. I think
meaning comes from being able to act in the world to realize values. And
it doesn't require
On 16 February 2014 16:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 15:32, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 09:39, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
snip
From thought cannot act on matter we arrive at thought cannot refer to
matter, and well, this is almost
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:18:54 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 17:48, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Ah, but then you would be faced with the questions posed by the UDA/MWI
arguments, because there would then be two conscious originals who
Have you forgotten now that I was responding to your own contention in
response to Stathis that if a living person could be duplicated both of the
resulting persons would be original? Perhaps you would care to respond to
my comment with respect to what might be inferred from this contention of
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:23:11 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 18:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:58:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:29:09 AM UTC-5,
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 7:12:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/16/2014 11:34 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 17:42, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote:
I don't disagree, but I think this formulation leaves meaning as
mysterious and one may ask why
On 17 February 2014 00:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't think so. We know where the values of the Mars Rover are encoded
and how they affect its behavior and we know how we could change them.
That's about as good as reductionism gets.
But now aren't you just substituting
On 2/16/2014 5:14 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 00:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
I don't think so. We know where the values of the Mars Rover are encoded
and how
they affect its behavior and we know how we could change them. That's
On 17 February 2014 01:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I and I would agree with Stathis - except for the merely. I think Bruno
was right when he observed that epi doesn't mean anything in this
context. Stathis doesn't think that consciousness is separable from the
physics; it's just
On Sunday, February 16, 2014, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:45:13 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:49:56 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 16
On 17 February 2014 02:34, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 16 February 2014 17:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't disagree, but I think this formulation leaves meaning as
mysterious and one may ask why consciousness creates meaning. I think
meaning comes from being
On 17 February 2014 08:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/16/2014 5:14 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 00:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't think so. We know where the values of the Mars Rover are encoded
and how they affect its behavior and we know how
On 15 February 2014 02:45, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If that is so (and I agree that it is, since I am not a physical
eliminativist) it is still consistent with the physical processes still
being *sufficient* to produce consciousness. It would only not be
sufficient if some
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The 3-1 view is the 3p view on the 1p views, note the plural, after the
duplication.
That is far more convoluted than it need to be, it's really not all that
complicated. After the duplication both the Washington Man
On Friday, February 14, 2014 9:45:34 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 13 February 2014 19:19, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:30:25 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 12 February 2014 23:47, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
I
To extend your metaphor, in my view, since the characters in a drama can
build an LCD screen as part of the show, but an LCD screen can't build a
show as part of its function, it makes more sense that the drama is
fundamental and that from an absolute perspective, it is the pixels which
are
On 15 February 2014 18:41, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
To extend your metaphor, in my view, since the characters in a drama can
build an LCD screen as part of the show, but an LCD screen can't build a
show as part of its function, it makes more sense that the drama is
On 15 February 2014 18:32, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You can't copy awareness. Awareness is what is uncopyable, not just because
awareness is special, but because it is ontologically perpendicular to the
possibility of simulation. All attempts to copy awareness result in a
On 15 February 2014 18:32, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You can't copy awareness. Awareness is what is uncopyable, not just
because awareness is special, but because it is ontologically perpendicular
to the possibility of simulation. All attempts to copy awareness result in
a
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:43:29 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 15 February 2014 18:32, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You can't copy awareness. Awareness is what is uncopyable, not just
because awareness is special, but because it is ontologically
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 5:48:12 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 15 February 2014 18:32, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You can't copy awareness. Awareness is what is uncopyable, not just
because awareness is special, but because it is ontologically perpendicular
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com
Date: 15 February 2014 23:45
Subject: RE: Better Than the Chinese Room
To: Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
Can you give me a principled distinction between reproducing and copying?
David
Sent from my Windows
message --
From: David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com
Date: 15 February 2014 23:45
Subject: RE: Better Than the Chinese Room
To: Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
Can you give me a principled distinction between reproducing and copying?
David
Sent from my Windows Phone
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 7:02:21 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Nyman david...@gmail.com javascript:
Date: 15 February 2014 23:45
Subject: RE: Better Than the Chinese Room
To: Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
Can you
On 15 February 2014 20:14, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 15 February 2014 02:45, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If that is so (and I agree that it is, since I am not a physical
eliminativist) it is still consistent with the physical processes still
being
On 15 February 2014 20:14, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 15 February 2014 02:45, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If that is so (and I agree that it is, since I am not a physical
eliminativist) it is still consistent with the physical processes still
being
On 16 February 2014 01:41, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
To extend your metaphor, in my view, since the characters in a drama can
build an LCD screen as part of the show, but an LCD screen can't build a
show as part of its function, it makes more sense that the drama is
On 16 February 2014 01:32, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
No, the copy of the experience has no belief or experience at all. The
reflection of the fire doesn't burn anything.
Are you saying that the copy will be dead? A pathologist would examine
it and declare that it cannot
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:40:17 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 16 February 2014 01:41, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
To extend your metaphor, in my view, since the characters in a drama can
build an LCD screen as part of the show, but an LCD screen can't
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:49:56 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 16 February 2014 01:32, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
No, the copy of the experience has no belief or experience at all. The
reflection of the fire doesn't burn anything.
Are you saying that
On 13 Feb 2014, at 22:08, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
My question was what is the unique consistent definition of
the 1p after the duplication has been performed?.
In the 3-1 view, that does not exist,
Then the 1p is
On 13 Feb 2014, at 22:23, LizR wrote:
On 14 February 2014 07:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Liz, and others,
On 13 Feb 2014, at 10:04, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2014 21:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If I reported that there was a flying pig, wouldn't comp just
On 13 February 2014 19:19, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:30:25 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 12 February 2014 23:47, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think that my experience can be replaced with a copy though.
So how
On 13 Feb 2014, at 04:08, meekerdb wrote:
snip
That doesn't mean it can explain ghosts, leprechauns, gods and
other things *not* observed.
Why not consciousness and other things that we do not see, but
at least believe in?
There's a difference between being able to explain anything
On 13 February 2014 21:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If I reported that there was a flying pig, wouldn't comp just explain,
That's the way arithmetic looks from inside.?
Why? No. Not at all.
You must (using G Co.) looks at the way arithmetic looks from inside,
and if you find
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:30:25 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 12 February 2014 23:47, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I don't think that my experience can be replaced with a copy though.
So how would you know you were a copy?
It has nothing to
On 2/13/2014 1:04 AM, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2014 21:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
If I reported that there was a flying pig, wouldn't comp just explain,
That's the
way arithmetic looks from inside.?
Why? No. Not at all.
You must
Liz, and others,
On 13 Feb 2014, at 10:04, LizR wrote:
On 13 February 2014 21:38, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If I reported that there was a flying pig, wouldn't comp just
explain, That's the way arithmetic looks from inside.?
Why? No. Not at all.
You must (using G Co.) looks
101 - 200 of 511 matches
Mail list logo
