On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> >>
>>> "Free Will" is the inability to always predict what you will do before
>>> you do it even if the environment is predictable. By this definition your
>>> computer has free will because when you ask it to multiply 96854 by 79446
>
On 03 Jan 2017, at 04:45, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> "Free Will" is the inability to always predict what you
will do before you do it even if the environment is predictable. By
this definition your computer has free will because when you
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> >>
>> "Free Will" is the inability to always predict what you will do before
>> you do it even if the environment is predictable. By this definition your
>> computer has free will because when you ask it to multiply 96854 by 79446
>> it
On 18 Oct 2016, at 23:20, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> Well, if we assume computationalism, Carroll's equation does
not solve the mind-body problem.
Nobody has the answer to the mind body problem because nobody
knows exactly what the q
othing fancy. "Explaining" is meant
in pure epiphenomenal fashion: an equation spontaneously appeared
on a sheet of paper, nothing else.
What do you think? Could it be possible to invent a self-explaining
Game of Life in that sense?
Evgenii
P.S. Carroll's Game of Life:
http://www
the determinism. At the same time, he says that
>>>> his equation is the very strong intellectual achievement of the
>>>> mankind.
>>>>
>>>> I thought that it could be possible to invent some sort of the Game
>>>> of Life whe
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Well, if we assume computationalism, Carroll's equation does not solve the
> mind-body problem.
>
Nobody has the answer to the mind body problem because nobody knows
exactly what the question is.
> >>
>> The one problem I hav
Am 16.10.2016 um 19:32 schrieb John Clark:
...
No, I do not know what life is. I guess, nobody does.
You know what life is you just don't have a definition, but you
have something much better, examples. After being given a few
examples of things that are alive and things that are not it's e
On 16 Oct 2016, at 19:32, John Clark wrote:
Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> I have listened to Sean Carroll's Big Picture.
I read his book too.
> His world view is actually similar to the Game of Life, well,
the rules are a bit more complicated. Below is the link to the
equation that he
Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
> I have listened to Sean Carroll's Big Picture.
I read his book too.
> >
> His world view is actually similar to the Game of Life, well, the rules
> are a bit more complicated. Below is the link to the equation that he
> proposes.
>
Carroll's equation
is
ant
in pure epiphenomenal fashion: an equation spontaneously appeared
on a sheet of paper, nothing else.
What do you think? Could it be possible to invent a
self-explaining Game of Life in that sense?
It is a standard result in mathematical logic that this is what
happens already in elementar
such a game.
I should mention that I mean nothing fancy. "Explaining" is meant
in pure epiphenomenal fashion: an equation spontaneously appeared
on a sheet of paper, nothing else.
What do you think? Could it be possible to invent a
self-explaining Game of Life in that sense?
I
John,
At the level of common sense everything looks clear. Yet, when we start
to consider the question scientifically, something strange happens: the
common sense answer disappears, yet there is no other answer.
Evgenii
Am 15.10.2016 um 17:51 schrieb John Mikes:
OK, Evgenii, I am game. Do y
ogous to what Carroll says. Well, it is hard to say in what
form the rules of the game should appear, but this after all gives
some freedom to invent such a game.
I should mention that I mean nothing fancy. "Explaining" is meant
in pure epiphenomenal fashion: an equation spontaneously appea
sly appeared on a
sheet of paper, nothing else.
What do you think? Could it be possible to invent a self-explaining
Game of Life in that sense?
It is a standard result in mathematical logic that this is what
happens already in elementary arithmetic. Even just he polynomial
diophantine equa
e Game
>>> of Life where during the system evolution one gets the rule of the
>>> game printed on the screen. In my view, this should be somewhat
>>> analogous to what Carroll says. Well, it is hard to say in what
>>> form the rules of the game should appear, but this a
ed
on a sheet of paper, nothing else.
What do you think? Could it be possible to invent a self-explaining
Game of Life in that sense?
Evgenii
P.S. Carroll's Game of Life:
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/04/the-
world-of-everyday-experience-in-one-equation/
-- You received this messa
"Explaining" is meant in pure
> epiphenomenal fashion: an equation spontaneously appeared on a sheet of
> paper, nothing else.
>
> What do you think? Could it be possible to invent a self-explaining Game
> of Life in that sense?
>
> Evgenii
>
> P.S. Carroll's Game
fancy. "Explaining" is meant in
pure epiphenomenal fashion: an equation spontaneously appeared on a
sheet of paper, nothing else.
What do you think? Could it be possible to invent a self-explaining Game
of Life in that sense?
Evgenii
P.S. Carroll's
19 matches
Mail list logo
