On 07 Sep 2012, at 13:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/7/2012 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But you claim that too, as matter is not primitive. or you lost me
again.
I need matter to communicate with you, but that matter is explained
in comp as a a persistent relational entity, so I
On 07 Sep 2012, at 17:11, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/7/2012 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Sep 2012, at 21:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:02:02 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
If you exclude space and time, what kind of locality do you refer
to?
On 9/8/2012 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Sep 2012, at 13:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/7/2012 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But you claim that too, as matter is not primitive. or you lost me
again.
I need matter to communicate with you, but that matter is explained
in comp as a
On 08 Sep 2012, at 12:45, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/8/2012 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Sep 2012, at 13:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/7/2012 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But you claim that too, as matter is not primitive. or you lost
me again.
I need matter to communicate
On 06 Sep 2012, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/6/2012 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Consciousness does not arise. It is not in space, nor in time. Its
local content, obtained by differentiation, internally can refer to
time and space,
Even if it is not *in* spacetime, my consciousness
On 06 Sep 2012, at 21:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:02:02 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:27, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 03:48, Craig Weinberg
On 07 Sep 2012, at 04:20, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/6/2012 1:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 08:38, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM,
On 9/7/2012 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Sep 2012, at 21:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:02:02 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:27, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
On 9/7/2012 2:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Sep 2012, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/6/2012 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Consciousness does not arise. It is not in space, nor in time. Its
local content, obtained by differentiation, internally can refer to
time and space,
Even if it
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:49:37 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/5/2012 10:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:25:02 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
But you couldn't realise you felt
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:52:11 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/5/2012 10:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:32:21 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
I find that the least plausible
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You interpret the existence
spontaneous neural activity as meaning that something magical like
this happens, but it doesn't mean that at all.
Spontaneous is just that, spontaneous. It isn't magical. It is quite
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
No, it doesn't mean that at all. If the billion people interact so as
to mimic the behaviour of the neurons in a brain, resulting in the
ability to (for example) converse in natural language, then the idea
is that the
-
From: Stathis Papaioannou
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-06, 03:06:20
Subject: Re: Sane2004 Step One
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You interpret the existence
spontaneous neural activity as meaning that something magical like
this happens
to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-05, 21:12:22
Subject: Re: Sane2004 Step One
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 3:13:05 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig
function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-06, 02:18:06
Subject: Re: Sane2004 Step One
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:49:37 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/5/2012 10:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012
say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-05, 21:21:03
Subject: Re: Sane2004 Step One
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
I must have missed something. What does the
thinking of men have to do with evolution ?
The evolution of plantlife ,at least, occurred before men were here.
The question is whether philosophical zombies are possible or
On 9/5/2012 11:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Intention is not magic and doesn't need hypothetical permission to exist. If your words
are random ricochets of quantum radioactive decay or thermodynamic anomalies, then they
are meaningless noise. You can't account for them because any accounting
On 05 Sep 2012, at 08:38, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as
discussed,
On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:27, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 03:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so much as a challenge
to Bruno, just sharing my notes of why I disagree.
that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-05, 11:04:53
Subject: Re: Sane2004 Step One
On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700
On 9/6/2012 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Consciousness does not arise. It is not in space, nor in time. Its local content,
obtained by differentiation, internally can refer to time and space,
Even if it is not *in* spacetime, my consciousness seems to depend on some particular
localized
On 05 Sep 2012, at 21:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/5/2012 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Put in another way: there is no ontological hardware. The hardware
and wetware are emergent on the digital basic ontology (which can
be described by numbers or combinators as they describe the same
On 05 Sep 2012, at 22:24, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 11:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:01, Russell Standish wrote:
For certain choices of this or that, the ultimate reality is
actually unknowable. For instance, the choice of a Turing complete
basis means that
On 9/6/2012 1:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 08:38, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
snip
What is most interesting
On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as discussed, assume that
the information content is exactly copyable.
Not exactly. Only sufficiently
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:59:55 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/4/2012 9:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so much as a challenge to
Bruno, just sharing my notes of why I disagree. Not sure how far I will get
this time, but here
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 12:06:18 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
yes, doctor: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire
thought experiment. If you agree that you are nothing
On 9/5/2012 12:47 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 9:37 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russel,
In Craig's defense. When did ontological considerations become a
matter of contingency? You cannot Choose what is Real!
But you choose what is real in your theory of the world. Then you see
On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as
discussed, assume that the information content is exactly
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Something about microelectronics and neurology though that blinds us
to the chasm between the map and the territory. This kind of example
with pencil and paper helps me see how really bizarre it is to expect
a conscious experience to arise out of
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
To me it only makes sense that we are our whole life, not just the
brain cells or functions. The body is a public structural shadow of
the private qualitative experience, which is an irreducible (but not
incorruptible) gestalt.
Bingo!
--
Onward!
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
All that matters is that it can exactly carry our the necessary
functions. Individual minds are just different versions of one
and the same mind! To steal an idea from Deutsch, Other histories
are just different universes are just
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Why? If everything is a singular totality on one level, then
synchronization is the precondition of time. Time is nothing but
perspective-orchestrated de-synchronization.
No. Time is an order of sequentially givens. DO not assume per-orderings
because
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Yeah, I don't know, any kind of universe-as-machine cosmology seems no
better than a theological cosmology. What machine does the machine run
on? What meta-arithmetic truths make arithmetic truths true?
Maybe it is the act of us being aware of them
On 9/5/2012 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
That's the right question to be asking! Errors are sentences that
are false in some code. Exactly how does this happen if one's
beliefs are predicated on Bp p(is true)?
Yeah, it seems to me like we should have to be spraying cybercide
On 9/5/2012 2:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 12:48:09 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
So you think somebody has to be looking at the Moon for it to exist?
What is existence other than the capacity to be detected in some way
by some thing (itself if nothing
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 07:26:53PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 10:09:45 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
It is the meat of the
comp assumption, and spelling it out this way makes it very
explicit. Either you agree you can be copied (without feeling a
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:37:22AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russel,
In Craig's defense. When did ontological considerations become a
matter of contingency? You cannot Choose what is Real! That is the
entire point of Reality. It is not up to the choice of any one. It
is that
...@verizon.net
9/5/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-05, 02:35:23
Subject: Re: Sane2004 Step One
On Wednesday
On 05 Sep 2012, at 03:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so much as a challenge
to Bruno, just sharing my notes of why I disagree. Not sure how far
I will get this time, but here are my objections to the first step
and the stipulated assumptions of comp.
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:18:07 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
We knew you didn't accept this, so the rest of the argument is
irrelevant
to you. However, I'm still not sure despite multiple
On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
*yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up
the entire
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:43:35 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
I don't like the word existence as it carries
so much baggage with it. What you describe
below is physical existence. That is a property
of extended entities.
I agree, existence means different
On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:14 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
*yes, doctor*: This is really the
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-05, 11:04:53
Subject: Re: Sane2004 Step One
On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012
-05, 11:07:00
Subject: Re: Re: Sane2004 Step One
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:43:35 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
I don't like the word existence as it carries
so much baggage with it. What you describe
below is physical existence. That is a property
of extended entities.
I
On 9/5/2012 11:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 06:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:14 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp
On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig wrote:
The test that I would use would be, as I have mentioned, to have someone be
walked off of their brain one hemisphere at a time, and then walked back on.
Ideally this process would be repeated several times for different
durations. That is the only test
On 9/5/2012 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Put in another way: there is no ontological hardware. The hardware and wetware are
emergent on the digital basic ontology (which can be described by numbers or combinators
as they describe the same computations and the same object: you can prove the
On 9/5/2012 11:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:01, Russell Standish wrote:
For certain choices of this or that, the ultimate reality is
actually unknowable. For instance, the choice of a Turing complete
basis means that the hardware running the computations is completely
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The ability to test depends entirely on my familiarity with the human and
how good the technology is. Can I touch them, smell them? If so, then I
would be surprised if I could be fooled by an inorganic body. Has there
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 05:37:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:01, Russell Standish wrote:
For certain choices of this or that, the ultimate reality is
actually unknowable. For instance, the choice of a Turing complete
basis means that the hardware running the
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 3:13:05 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig wrote:
The test that I would use would be, as I have mentioned, to have someone be
walked off of their brain one hemisphere at a time, and then walked back on.
Ideally this process would be
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 3:13:05 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig wrote:
The test that I would use would be, as I have mentioned, to have someone
be
walked off of their brain one
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:32 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I agree with all you say, except the implication of the last sentence: that
evolution would never produce results with some inessential side effect.
First, evolution has to produce things by evolving - not starting from a
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 9:21:34 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 3:13:05 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig wrote:
The test that I would
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 11:26:43 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:32 AM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.netjavascript:
wrote:
I agree with all you say, except the implication of the last sentence:
that
evolution would never produce results with some inessential
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
But you couldn't realise you felt different if the part of your brain
responsible for realising were receiving exactly the same inputs from
the rest of the brain. So you could feel different, or feel nothing,
but
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I find that the least plausible explanation. It means that if a billion
people talk to each other and give each other information, that some kind of
consciousness must necessarily arise as a side-effect. You could say
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:32:21 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I find that the least plausible explanation. It means that if a billion
people talk to each other and give each other information,
On 9/5/2012 10:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:25:02 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
javascript:
wrote:
But you couldn't realise you felt different if the part of your brain
On 9/5/2012 10:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:32:21 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
javascript:
wrote:
I find that the least plausible explanation. It means that if a billion
people
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
*yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire
thought experiment. If you agree that you are nothing but your brain
function and that your
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 10:09:45 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
*yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the
entire
thought
On 9/4/2012 9:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so much as a challenge to
Bruno, just sharing my notes of why I disagree. Not sure how far I
will get this time, but here are my objections to the first step and
the stipulated assumptions of comp. I
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
yes, doctor: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire
thought experiment. If you agree that you are nothing but your brain
function and that your brain function can be replaced by the functioning
On 9/4/2012 10:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
*yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire
thought experiment. If you agree that you are nothing
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as discussed, assume that
the information content is exactly copyable.
Not exactly. Only sufficiently accurately to maintain your consciousness.
This is not qubits that are involved... The
On 9/4/2012 9:37 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russel,
In Craig's defense. When did ontological considerations become a matter of
contingency? You cannot Choose what is Real!
But you choose what is real in your theory of the world. Then you see how well your
theory measures up. The
On 9/5/2012 12:14 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 7:19 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:48:58PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I have problems with all three of the comp assumptions:
*yes, doctor*: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the
entire
thought
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as discussed,
assume that the information content is exactly copyable.
Not exactly. Only sufficiently accurately to maintain your consciousness.
If
73 matches
Mail list logo
