On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing,
and have zero consciousness.
Edgar,
1. Do you believe an atom-for-atom replacement of you would be conscious?
2. Do you believe replacing
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this
question...
Actually to answer your question properly you have to define 'person',
what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a 'simulation'.
On 15 January 2014 09:08, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
John,
The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we
appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through
our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this
question...
Actually to answer your
On 15 January 2014 09:20, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
Please, please, please! Read my New Topic on How Spacetime emerges from
computational reality. I answer that QM question in considerable detail. I
explain why the spin entanglement paradox is not actually paradoxical.
On 15 January 2014 09:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing,
and have zero consciousness.
Do you think Santa Claus is real and knows things and is conscious? I
can't believe you'd even ask such a dumb
On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
Teehee.
Not a condescending *dismissal* in anyone else's mind, however, just more
hand-waving nonsense that only Edgar could possibly think is a dismissal.
This is fun, in a
Jason,
There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones one by
one. When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer your
question.
You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no
basis in reality as if they were true. When we study
Liz,
If your question is whether or not it is possible to determine whether we
are living in a matrix type simulation I believe it is because we would not
just be living in the simulation but in the entire reality in which the
simulation is being produced. Thus given human level intelligence,
Liz,
Thanks for confirming what I've long suspected, that you actually live in
the 19th century!
I have some good news for you, flying machines, robots, and rockets to the
moon are actually real now. If you read my book you'll discover some other
things that are real as well - but not
On 15 January 2014 14:37, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
If your question is whether or not it is possible to determine whether we
are living in a matrix type simulation I believe it is because we would not
just be living in the simulation but in the entire reality in which the
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones one
by one. When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer
your question.
You are letting your imagination run wild here
Liz,
It's a lot less of hunch than the simulation theory in the first place.
Why don't you just go back to the Bible and accept the theory that God
created man and the world 4000 years ago? It's EXACTLY the same theory as
the simulation theory, and equally unlikely, just without the modern
Wow, did you really misunderstand what I was saying to that extent? You are
starting to remind me of those people who come to the door to persuade me
to accept Jesus as my saviour. They're also incapable of spotting the
intent of a satirical comment, or a metaphor, or drawing a parallel, or -
of
Freq,
Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note
I said that could replace biological neurons one by one.
Send me a few links referencing that being possible please
:-)
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
On
Liz,
Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment
perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which you didn't...
Lighten up and smile!
:-)
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:52:46 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
Wow, did you really misunderstand what I was
On 15 January 2014 14:51, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones one
by one. When there are let me know and I'll check them out and
OK.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Freq,
Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note
I said that could replace biological neurons one by one.
Send me a
So, all is explained. No wonder he doesn't get special relativity, with
its free-falling elevators and trains travelling at half the speed of light!
I can almost picture his response...
Albert,
There are no 'relativistic trains' that can travel near light speed. When
there are let me know, and
Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with
finding a life partner.
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
OK.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5,
On 15 January 2014 14:59, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment
perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which you didn't...
Lighten up and smile!
Actually I'm trying to restrain myself from ROFL at the
On 1/14/2014 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Freq,
Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note I said that
could replace biological neurons one by one.
But then why do you suppose that replacing the biological neurons with artificial neurons
having the same
LIz,
Good one! Thanks for the chuckles!
Best,
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:01:38 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 15 January 2014 14:51, freqflyer07281972
thismind...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
There are
Brent,
I didn't say that...
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:11:37 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/14/2014 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Freq,
Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond?
Note I said that could replace biological neurons one by one.
Freq,
But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one.
You?
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with
finding a life partner.
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5,
*SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a
compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who
believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or
selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young and
healthy
P.S. for Liz: TAKE NOTE! While you might be out of the running to be
Edgar's companion, perhaps you might know some non-feminist women who
could be?
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:26:02 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
*SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a
On 15 January 2014 15:29, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.comwrote:
P.S. for Liz: TAKE NOTE! While you might be out of the running to be
Edgar's companion, perhaps you might know some non-feminist women who
could be?
Probably not in my neck of the woods (New Zealand) -- us Kiwi
On 15 January 2014 15:16, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
LIz,
Good one! Thanks for the chuckles!
Thanks! It's the least I can do considering the hours of amusement you've
provided.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
Assuming this is genuine (and the phraseology certainly sounds like our Mr
Owen) ... all I can say is, anyone who asks for a non-feminist in the
21st century deserves to be shot.
So it's fortunate for Edgar that his ego, if not his theory, appears to be
bullet-proof.
On 15 January 2014 15:26,
Terren,
There is no infinity of simulations. We are talking about actual reality
rather than sci fi fantasy here, or at least we should be.
Every biological organism has one and only one internal mental simulation
of its external reality environment. This whole system, external world
Bruno,
You ask where does mind come from? Obviously it arises via evolution like
all biological structures. There should be no question about that. Is it
some sort of mystery in your 'comp'?
And I'm using computable and computations in the STANDARD sense it's
used in computer science, as the
Bruno,
Yes, some things ARE obvious. For example the fact that we exist. Isn't
that obvious? :-)
But I agree we must be careful not be led astray with unfounded
'interpretations' of the obvious. The wise man properly discerns what is
clearly obvious (eg. that we exist, and we exist in a
Bruno,
You first assume all mathematics somehow exists 'out there' independent of
humans. If that were true and actual reality consisted of all math sitting
there in some static state, then you might be correct, but this is an
enormous unwarranted assumption with no empirical evidence.
The
Bruno,
I use computation in the STANDARD sense of computer science. Computer
programs compute results. Reality computes the current state of the
universe. It's very simple, straightforward and standard usage.
See my other post on the same topic for more detail.
Edgar
On Friday,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Bruno,
I use computation in the STANDARD sense of computer science. Computer
programs compute results.
Computers compute results. Computer programs describe how computers
compute results. This is all circular and nothing
On Jan 13, 2014, at 6:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Terren,
There is no infinity of simulations. We are talking about actual
reality rather than sci fi fantasy here, or at least we should be.
Edgar,
How do you know reality is really as small and limited as you think it
Jason,
Reality is not 'small', it's very very large. It's just not infinite. See
my other post of an hour ago for an explanation of why nothing real and
actual can be infinite
We explain what we can observe. If you have evidence of some alternate
physics somewhere only then you can ask me
Hi Edgar,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Terren,
There is no infinity of simulations. We are talking about actual reality
rather than sci fi fantasy here, or at least we should be.
Given that your knowledge of reality necessarily comes from your
Edgar,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Terren,
Don't tell me what's in my theory. There are NO infinity of logical
realities being computed. There is no Platonia
If what you're positing is a fundamental computational reality, then
there's
Terren,
Don't tell me what's in my theory. There are NO infinity of logical
realities being computed. There is no Platonia
You seem to be referencing Bruno's comp. There is NO 'Platonia' in my
theory.
There is enormous evidence and theoretical justification for Present moment
P-time.
Terren,
I just explained how it is possible to tell if your particular simulation
is accurate or not. The fact of your continued existence. If it didn't
accurately model the logic of external reality you wouldn't be here. The
'Matrix' scenario that you can't distinguish between all possible
Edgar,
On 13 Jan 2014, at 13:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
You ask where does mind come from? Obviously it arises via evolution
like all biological structures.
Not only that is not obvious, but this might be false. It might be
locally true for the human mind differentiation, but the
On 13 Jan 2014, at 13:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Yes, some things ARE obvious. For example the fact that we exist.
Isn't that obvious? :-)
Who we ? The universal numbers?
Your consciousness here-and-now is, for you, obvious. I grant that.
Nothing more.
I bet on this, and believe
2014/1/13 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Terren,
I just explained how it is possible to tell if your particular simulation
is accurate or not. The fact of your continued existence. If it didn't
accurately model the logic of external reality you wouldn't be here. The
'Matrix' scenario that
On 13 Jan 2014, at 14:20, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
I use computation in the STANDARD sense of computer science.
Computer programs compute results. Reality computes the current
state of the universe.
So reality is a computer program? That seems like digital physics
thesis.
Edgar,
A simulation can be utterly precise and impossible to distinguish from
sensory data, in principle. You seem to be ignoring that by your own theory
it is possible to simulate the logic of external reality precisely, as that
is what you are positing happens at a fundamental level.
I am
On 14 January 2014 01:44, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Terren,
There is no infinity of simulations. We are talking about actual reality
rather than sci fi fantasy here, or at least we should be.
So you don't think there is any such thing as arithmetical realism. OK.
Every
On 14 January 2014 02:11, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Bruno,
You first assume all mathematics somehow exists 'out there' independent of
humans. If that were true and actual reality consisted of all math sitting
there in some static state, then you might be correct, but this is an
On 1/13/2014 10:16 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Terren,
I just explained how it is possible to tell if your particular simulation is accurate or
not. The fact of your continued existence. If it didn't accurately model the logic of
external reality you wouldn't be here.
That's poor logic
On 10 January 2014 07:04, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Terren,
First, it will only detract, not help, to try to shoehorn my theories into
standard categories. It's an entirely new theory.
This is fine if you are writing fiction, but in science you have to be
prepared for some
Dear Flyer,
You must be hard up for entertainment. Perhaps you should try watching the
Matrix one more time with popcorn or try contributing something meaningful
to the discussion?
:-)
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 5:44:47 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Haha! Ya Liz, I think your
Terren,
No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to consider
not just what is happening in the simulated being's 'mind' or simulation
but the whole context of the simulation. I'll try again. Even if a
simulated world is entirely convincing in the short term it still MUST
On 14 January 2014 12:52, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Dear Flyer,
You must be hard up for entertainment. Perhaps you should try watching the
Matrix one more time with popcorn or try contributing something meaningful
to the discussion?
He just did. He pointed out a number of ways
Liz,
That doesn't follow. Don't you understand basic logical forms?
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 7:15:04 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 14 January 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Terren,
No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to
On 14 January 2014 13:19, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
That doesn't follow. Don't you understand basic logical forms?
It was as logical as your argument.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from
Liz,
If your internal simulation of reality is not consistent with the
essentials of reality you cannot function or exist. That depends on
consistency with the LOGIC of reality, NOT how it is represented internally
by the qualia you mention (which are also covered extensively in my book).
I
On 14 January 2014 13:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
If your internal simulation of reality is not consistent with the
essentials of reality you cannot function or exist. That depends on
consistency with the LOGIC of reality, NOT how it is represented internally
by the
Liz,
That's one possibility but more likely is that you just don't take the time
to read and consider what I've actually written in your over eagerness to
criticize...
Anyway thanks for letting us know you don't have any theory of reality
yourself in spite of your incessant proclamations as
On 14 January 2014 13:51, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
That's one possibility but more likely is that you just don't take the
time to read and consider what I've actually written in your over eagerness
to criticize...
Yes of course, I couldn't possibly have any valid
On Jan 13, 2014, at 6:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Terren,
No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to
consider not just what is happening in the simulated being's 'mind'
or simulation but the whole context of the simulation. I'll try
again. Even
On 1/13/2014 4:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Terren,
No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to consider not just
what is happening in the simulated being's 'mind' or simulation but the whole context of
the simulation. I'll try again. Even if a simulated world is
On 1/13/2014 5:49 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
Come on Jason, the whole notion of 'living inside a video game' is adolescent fantasy.
Is there some real person living inside the game? If so he has to actually be living
outside the game (a la Matrix strapped to a couch with wires and tubes)
Brent,
No, there are NOT many POSSIBLE worlds. There are many ACTUAL simulations
of a single computational reality, and all of those simulations are not
arbitrary sci fi scenarios but solidly based in the actual logic of reality
at least in their essentials. Because these are real world views
Brent,
What makes some computations real is that they are computing real and
actual processes of reality. They are actually running in reality computing
the actual state of reality instead of running in some teen ager's fantasy
or video game. That should be obvious...
Example the computations
Edgar,
The Matrix style simulation is a very special case and it's description in
which a biological being has its sensory data shunted by a virtual
interface is beside the point.
Probably a better example is the uploading scenario, where the doctor
doesn't restore your mind in a physical body,
On 1/13/2014 6:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
No, there are NOT many POSSIBLE worlds.
So there is only one possible world. That would seem to imply the world is determinstic.
How do you account for quantum randomness? Are you assuming hidden variables or
hyperdeterminism?
There are
On 1/13/2014 6:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
What makes some computations real is that they are computing real and actual processes
of reality. They are actually running in reality computing the actual state of reality
instead of running in some teen ager's fantasy or video game. That
Terren,
Where have you been? I did answer this question. You create a biological
robot by putting together the exact parts that constitute a human being
down to the last cell and molecule. The result will be a conscious human
being unless you believe in some nonsensical concept of soul or
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Reality is not 'small', it's very very large. It's just not infinite.
You believe there is only one physical universe, right? What is your
justification for this? How do you know there wasn't another big bang
Brent,
Jesus Brent don't you understand basic English syntax and logic, or are you
being purposefully dense?
I never said there is only one POSSIBLE world, I clearly stated there is
only one ACTUAL world and many actual simulations of that world in the
minds of biological organisms. I even
Brent,
For God's sakes, the characters in a video game' don't know anything.
They are completely fictional characters. You seem to have lost all touch
with reality in your zeal to find something to criticize. I can't believe
we are actually having this discussion... Do you also believe ghosts,
On 14 January 2014 14:49, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Come on Jason, the whole notion of 'living inside a video game' is
adolescent fantasy. Is there some real person living inside the game? If so
he has to actually be living outside the game (a la Matrix strapped to a
I meant the question of using the experience of a present moment (built
from an illusory construction) as evidence of a fundamental p-time. You
haven't answered that - how you could logically make that move. It's not
arrogance, because I challenged you to answer that one question and you
have
Liz,
That's not artificial intelligence. Completely different concept...
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:00:09 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 14 January 2014 14:49, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Jason,
Come on Jason, the whole notion of 'living inside a video game' is
On 14 January 2014 16:13, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
That's not artificial intelligence. Completely different concept...
No it isn't. If we could create an AI, we could put it inside a simulated
world, and then it would be equivalent to a character living in a video
game. So
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHEHEHEHEHEHEHE!!
As much as I love The Matrix (and I do love me some Matrix) and popcorn
(ditto), I gotta tell ya, edgar, there is no better entertainment that
seeing a grown man, who has been eating a steady diet of his own bullshit
for years (it seems, as you do appear
Ooh you *are *awful, but I like you.
On 14 January 2014 16:34, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.comwrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHEHEHEHEHEHEHE!!
As much as I love The Matrix (and I do love me some Matrix) and popcorn
(ditto), I gotta tell ya, edgar, there is no better
On 14 January 2014 16:42, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Terren,
Sorry if it takes considerable serious effort to understand reality. If I
could put it in a comic book or sci fi movie for you I would...
At the moment it seems more like a soap opera :-)
--
You received this message
Liz,
Of course it's possible to create an AI. It's done all the time. I've
programmed a number of them myself.
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:28:47 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 14 January 2014 16:13, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz,
That's not artificial
On 1/13/2014 6:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Jesus Brent don't you understand basic English syntax and logic, or are you being
purposefully dense?
I never said there is only one POSSIBLE world,
You wrote below, No, there are NOT many POSSIBLE worlds. We're pretty sure there's one
On 1/13/2014 6:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
For God's sakes, the characters in a video game' don't know anything. They are
completely fictional characters. You seem to have lost all touch with reality in your
zeal to find something to criticize. I can't believe we are actually having
That will come as a shock to the programmers who write AI for computer games. It's the
part that allows the computer to beat you.
Brent
On 1/13/2014 7:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
That's not artificial intelligence. Completely different concept...
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014
On 14 January 2014 16:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Of course it's possible to create an AI. It's done all the time. I've
programmed a number of them myself.
I'm sure the artifical intelligence community will be intested to know
that. OK, to recap, we were talking about
On 14 January 2014 17:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That will come as a shock to the programmers who write AI for computer
games. It's the part that allows the computer to beat you.
I know the gaming industry uses the term for characters in games, but I've
been assuming that in
On 14 January 2014 17:27, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.comwrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Now the self-deluded crank deigns to condescend!
PRICELESS!!
Could you call your movie/comic book Reality? And could it feature a man
who goes around trying to convince the rest
On 1/13/2014 10:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 17:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
That will come as a shock to the programmers who write AI for computer
games. It's
the part that allows the computer to beat you.
I know the gaming industry
On 14 January 2014 19:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/13/2014 10:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 17:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That will come as a shock to the programmers who write AI for computer
games. It's the part that allows the computer to beat
On 1/13/2014 10:18 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 19:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/13/2014 10:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 17:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That will come
On 14 January 2014 19:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/13/2014 10:18 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 19:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/13/2014 10:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 17:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That will come as a
On 1/13/2014 11:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 19:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/13/2014 10:18 PM, LizR wrote:
...
So you don't think a discussion of what counts as an AI is a good idea? OK, that's fine
by me (you're the one who wants to
On 14 January 2014 20:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/13/2014 11:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 19:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/13/2014 10:18 PM, LizR wrote:
So you don't think a discussion of what counts as an AI is a good idea?
OK, that's fine by
On 11 Jan 2014, at 00:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Second, a reality can exist without being computed. the best and
simple example is arithmetic. Only a very tiny part of it is
computable (this is provable if you accept the Church Turing thesis).
But
On 11 Jan 2014, at 01:06, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 12:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Second, a reality can exist without being computed. the best and
simple example is arithmetic. Only a very tiny part of it is
computable (this is
On 09 Jan 2014, at 20:20, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Terren,
Receiving a prosthetic brain is a (probably insurmountable)
technical problem. There could certainly be one functionally
equivalent to mine but it wouldn't be mine because it wouldn't have
the exact same history. If it did it would
On 10 Jan 2014, at 01:10, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
This is precisely why it is impossible to exactly clone a mind.
Then comp, in the very weak sense of the existence of a substitution
level, is false, but then the mind is infinite and reality is
infinite, contradicting your claim
On 10 Jan 2014, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz and Terren,
I'm thinking more about this and think I've now changed my mind on
it. After all I (my mental state etc.) do continually change from
moment to moment yet I have no doubt I'm still me. I'm not the
'same' person, but I'm still
On 10 Jan 2014, at 02:22, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, I don't agree with that at all. As I've said on a number of
occasions, reality is obviously computed because it exists.
So existence implies computability? Computability theory exists
because we can distinguish existence from
On 10 Jan 2014, at 02:53, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 14:22, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
No, I don't agree with that at all. As I've said on a number of
occasions, reality is obviously computed because it exists. What
more convincing proof could there be?
One that
On 10 Jan 2014, at 03:34, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One merely needs to show
it doesn't properly describe reality as I've just done.
?
If you even assume a computational universe in the first place you
have to assume (you are assuming) that
101 - 200 of 243 matches
Mail list logo
