On 4/28/2015 2:11 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-28 9:58 GMT+02:00 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:59:33PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
No, I'm just saying they aren't available; and I think the in terms
of
On 28 April 2015 at 11:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You're nit picking.
Hah. Pot, kettle.
--
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
2015-04-28 7:59 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/27/2015 10:20 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le 28 avr. 2015 00:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit :
On 4/27/2015 2:28 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I'm sorry, you were talking about resolution, not screen size.
So what
2015-04-28 8:37 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
2015-04-28 7:59 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/27/2015 10:20 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le 28 avr. 2015 00:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit :
On 4/27/2015 2:28 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I'm
2015-04-28 9:58 GMT+02:00 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:59:33PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
No, I'm just saying they aren't available; and I think the in terms
of screen real estate, a 17 3840x2160 is actually a step down in
functionality from a 17
I like a wide display, it lets me put things next to each other (e.g. an
email and a word doc) which is often quite handy. On a squarer screen they
always tended to overlap too much. Actually I have two screens, one is old
and squareish the other new and wideish. Between them I have just about
On 4/27/2015 10:20 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le 28 avr. 2015 00:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net a
écrit :
On 4/27/2015 2:28 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I'm sorry, you were talking about resolution, not screen size.
So what ? 4k screen are new in laptop (and
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:59:33PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
No, I'm just saying they aren't available; and I think the in terms
of screen real estate, a 17 3840x2160 is actually a step down in
functionality from a 17 1920x1200. Sure it's got more resolution,
but my eye isn't good enough to
On 27 April 2015 at 19:22, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
LizR wrote:
Yes that's more of less what SA said - they've got around the clock speed
limit by multiplying cores, but they can't get around the fact that
components can't be scaled below (I think) 14nm without that
On 4/27/2015 10:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-27 19:18 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/27/2015 1:35 AM, LizR wrote:
I think it goes without saying that the whole enterprise is mainly driven
by the
profit motive (although of
2015-04-27 22:25 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/27/2015 10:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-27 19:18 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/27/2015 1:35 AM, LizR wrote:
I think it goes without saying that the whole enterprise is mainly driven
by the profit
Yes that's more of less what SA said - they've got around the clock speed
limit by multiplying cores, but they can't get around the fact that
components can't be scaled below (I think) 14nm without that transistors
leaking electrons - at least not without some radical new technology. So it
was
Hmm... I think you can speed this up if you precompute and stick the
answers in a lookup table. Of course, you still have to calculate the index
of the answer
On Sunday, April 26, 2015, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 12:22:21PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
LizR wrote:
Yes that's more of less what SA said - they've got around the clock
speed limit by multiplying cores, but they can't get around the fact
that components can't be scaled below (I think) 14nm without that
transistors leaking electrons - at least not without some radical new
I should have added - the writer doesn't know enough science fiction. He
says the SF writers were wrong to invent HAL but then goes on to describe
what is effectively Asimov style robots. Asimov had a better idea of an
omniintelligent environment - as much as anyone did, at least - than Clarke
On 4/27/2015 2:28 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I'm sorry, you were talking about resolution, not screen size.
So what ? 4k screen are new in laptop (and anywhere else), but you can buy a 60 TV 4k
screen, if you want... 17 4k laptops are due to arrive this year, if they're not
already there.
On 4/27/2015 4:17 PM, LizR wrote:
On 28 April 2015 at 08:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 4/27/2015 10:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-27 19:18 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/27/2015
On 28 April 2015 at 05:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/27/2015 1:35 AM, LizR wrote:
I think it goes without saying that the whole enterprise is mainly driven
by the profit motive (although of course there have been significant
injections from other areas, little things like
On 28 April 2015 at 08:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/27/2015 10:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-04-27 19:18 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/27/2015 1:35 AM, LizR wrote:
I think it goes without saying that the whole enterprise is mainly driven
by the
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
Is uploading possible?
Yes, unless the religious crap about the soul turns out to be real, but I
think it more likely that Santa Claus will turn out to be real.
If so, when will we have it?
In one sense we *might* have it
On 4/27/2015 12:22 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
Yes that's more of less what SA said - they've got around the clock speed limit by
multiplying cores, but they can't get around the fact that components can't be scaled
below (I think) 14nm without that transistors leaking electrons - at
On 4/27/2015 1:35 AM, LizR wrote:
I think it goes without saying that the whole enterprise is mainly driven by the profit
motive (although of course there have been significant injections from other areas,
little things like the internet!) But the profit motive requires that people keep
2015-04-27 19:18 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 4/27/2015 1:35 AM, LizR wrote:
I think it goes without saying that the whole enterprise is mainly driven
by the profit motive (although of course there have been significant
injections from other areas, little things like the
Le 28 avr. 2015 00:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit :
On 4/27/2015 2:28 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I'm sorry, you were talking about resolution, not screen size.
So what ? 4k screen are new in laptop (and anywhere else), but you can
buy a 60 TV 4k screen, if you want... 17 4k laptops
On 25 Apr 2015, at 17:58, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
a destructive upload should be possible, and a conservative upload
would give you a 50-50 chance of finding yourself uploaded.
Would give who a 50-50 chance of being uploaded?
If there is
On 26 April 2015 at 02:19, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
that is guaranteed if you can duplicate - or, apparently, just simulate
- the quantum state of your body
That would be VAST overkill! The quantum state of your body changes about a
hundred thousand million billion trillion
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 12:22:21PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Not sure I follow you here. Arbitrary precision does not mean infinite
precision. If I want my calculation to be accurate to 300 digits, then
it can
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 4:52 AM, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com
wrote:
In the thread discussing comp the topic of whether uploading is possible
came up. While tangentially related to comp, objections on the grounds of
practical impossibility miss the point. But! The topic is still very
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:27:26AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
But there's no-cloning to consider - plus whether a simulated
quantum state is the same as a real one...
No-cloning of an unknown
and the info it contains is
available and transportable, and has evolved this way for a very long time.
-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Apr 25, 2015 12:19 pm
Subject: Re: Practicalities of Mind
: Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
On 4/24/2015 4:24 AM, LizR wrote:
On 24 April 2015 at 23:03, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
How about this? MWI, if true, refutes the no-clonning conundrum
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 01:48:40PM +1200, LizR wrote:
According to the latest Scientific American, Moore's Law stopped working
about 10 years ago. I'm not sure if or how this affects the
prognostications for AIs, mind simulation etc, though.
The only thing that stopped 10 years ago was the
According to the latest Scientific American, Moore's Law stopped working
about 10 years ago. I'm not sure if or how this affects the
prognostications for AIs, mind simulation etc, though.
On 27 April 2015 at 11:59, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 12:22:21PM
On 4/24/2015 7:23 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Why should quantum states be so hard to identify and describe? Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle states that we cannot know a particles position and velocity at the same time.
But we can. It's just that if we prepare the particle
On 4/24/2015 4:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le 25 avr. 2015 01:25, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com a écrit :
Le 25 avr. 2015 01:21, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
mailto:stath...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Quentin
On 4/24/2015 4:24 AM, LizR wrote:
On 24 April 2015 at 23:03, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
How about this? MWI, if true, refutes the no-clonning conundrum.
Yes, that's my opinion too - but it doesn't allow
Le 25 avr. 2015 08:59, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net a écrit :
On 4/24/2015 4:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le 25 avr. 2015 01:25, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com a écrit :
Le 25 avr. 2015 01:21, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com a
écrit :
On Saturday, April 25,
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
a destructive upload should be possible, and a conservative upload would
give you a 50-50 chance of finding yourself uploaded.
Would give who a 50-50 chance of being uploaded?
If there is something wrong with comp [...]
There is
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The question is whether the you who was a biological entity experiences
waking up as the uploaded version.
If the you who woke up this morning is the same you that went to sleep
last night then the answer to the above question is obvious. If
On 24 April 2015 at 23:03, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
How about this? MWI, if true, refutes the no-clonning conundrum.
Yes, that's my opinion too - but it doesn't allow US to do it. The MWI is
constantly duplicating quantum states, indeed there are
How about this? MWI, if true, refutes the no-clonning conundrum.
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Apr 23, 2015 5:39 pm
Subject: Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
On 24 April 2015 at 06:39
On 24 April 2015 at 21:03, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
How about this? MWI, if true, refutes the no-clonning conundrum.
It was never a conundrum.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
of Mind Uploading
On 24 April 2015 at 23:03, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
How about this? MWI, if true, refutes the no-clonning conundrum.
Yes, that's my opinion too - but it doesn't allow US to do
LizR wrote:
On 24 April 2015 at 23:03, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
How about this? MWI, if true, refutes the no-clonning conundrum.
Yes, that's my opinion too - but it doesn't allow US to do it. The
7:57 am
Subject: Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
On 24 April 2015 at 21:03, spudboy100 via Everything
List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
How about this? MWI, if true,
refutes the no-clonning conundrum.
It was never a conundrum.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received
On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-04-24 23:07 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','stath...@gmail.com');:
On Friday, April 24, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 25 avr. 2015 01:25, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','allco...@gmail.com'); a écrit :
Le 25 avr. 2015 01:21, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
Le 25 avr. 2015 01:25, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com a écrit :
Le 25 avr. 2015 01:21, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com a
écrit :
On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-04-24 23:07 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com:
2015-04-24 23:07 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com:
On Friday, April 24, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
For some, its a conundrum, or in any case see it as a block to cloning,
or a slam dunk into the trash bin of physics and
2015-04-25 0:29 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
2015-04-24 23:07 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com:
On Friday, April 24, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
For some, its a conundrum, or in any case see it as a block
Le 25 avr. 2015 01:21, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-04-24 23:07 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com:
On Friday, April 24, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List
@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Apr 24, 2015 09:38 PM
Subject: Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
div id=AOLMsgPart_2_96bcb4c7-be31-49b9-95f6-9d03855c077a
div dir=ltr
div class=aolmail_gmail_extra
div class=aolmail_gmail_quote
On 25 April 2015 at 01:45, Bruce Kellett
span dir=ltra target
On 25 April 2015 at 01:45, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 24 April 2015 at 23:03, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
wrote:
How about this? MWI, if true, refutes the no-clonning
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:08:02PM -0700, Dennis Ochei wrote:
Where can I sign up to be a part of Cosmic Liz? =p
I've wondered if there exists an observer moment with all other observer
moments as part of its consistent history.
I wonder what God's favorite dream is?
I would say no, as
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:27:26AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
But there's no-cloning to consider - plus whether a simulated
quantum state is the same as a real one...
No-cloning of an unknown quantum state is simply the statement that
there is no unitary operator that will
On Friday, April 24, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
For some, its a conundrum, or in any case see it as a block to cloning, or
a slam dunk into the trash bin of physics and philosophy. For me, no.
Philosophically there is no problem with the no
of Mind Uploading
Sorry to go off topic so soon :-) but at first glance the answer to this would
appear to depend completely on the answer to Bruno's yes doctor - if one's
consciousness is the result of computation at some level, and assuming Bruno's
chain of reasoning is correct
@googlegroups.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','everything-list@googlegroups.com');
Sent: Thu, Apr 23, 2015 6:06 am
Subject: Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
Sorry to go off topic so soon :-) but at first glance the answer to
this would appear to depend completely on the answer to Bruno's yes
On 24 April 2015 at 06:39, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
My sense of things is that if it's not your identity who's is it then?
Pattern identity sorts it out. If it looks like you, and it thinks like
you, has your attitudes, opinions, belief's,
...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Apr 23, 2015 3:08 pm
Subject: Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading
Where can I sign up to be a part of Cosmic Liz? =p
I've wondered if there exists an observer moment with all other observer
moments as part of its
On 4/23/2015 2:52 AM, Dennis Ochei wrote:
In the thread discussing comp the topic of whether uploading is possible came
up. While tangentially related to comp, objections on the grounds of practical
impossibility miss the point. But! The topic is still very interesting.
Is uploading possible?
LizR wrote:
But there's no-cloning to consider - plus whether a simulated quantum
state is the same as a real one...
No-cloning of an unknown quantum state is simply the statement that
there is no unitary operator that will enable you to transfer the
properties of one unknown quantum state
Sorry to go off topic so soon :-) but at first glance the answer to this
would appear to depend completely on the answer to Bruno's yes doctor -
if one's consciousness is the result of computation at some level, and
assuming Bruno's chain of reasoning is correct, then a destructive upload
should
In the thread discussing comp the topic of whether uploading is possible came
up. While tangentially related to comp, objections on the grounds of practical
impossibility miss the point. But! The topic is still very interesting.
Is uploading possible? If so, when will we have it?
What fidelity
On 23 Apr 2015, at 8:06 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to go off topic so soon :-) but at first glance the answer to this
would appear to depend completely on the answer to Bruno's yes doctor - if
one's consciousness is the result of computation at some level, and assuming
On 23 April 2015 at 19:52, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
In the thread discussing comp the topic of whether uploading is possible came
up. While tangentially related to comp, objections on the grounds of
practical impossibility miss the point. But! The topic is still very
The point of using quantum states is that the universe guarantees they are
indistinguishable, and hence unless consciousness is magic / supernatural
it must be identical in quantum-identical brains. It's possible the
substitution level for consciousness is above the quantum level, but
(allegedly)
On 24 April 2015 at 11:27, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
LizR wrote:
But there's no-cloning to consider - plus whether a simulated quantum
state is the same as a real one...
No-cloning of an unknown quantum state is simply the statement that there is
no unitary operator
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 24 April 2015 at 11:27, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
LizR wrote:
But there's no-cloning to consider - plus whether a simulated quantum
state is the same as a real one...
No-cloning of an unknown quantum state is simply the statement that there
LizR wrote:
The point of using quantum states is that the universe guarantees they
are indistinguishable, and hence unless consciousness is magic /
supernatural it must be identical in quantum-identical brains. It's
possible the substitution level for consciousness is above the quantum
level,
70 matches
Mail list logo
