On 14 May 2015, at 21:17, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/14/2015 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 May 2015, at 20:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/13/2015 3:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 May 2015, at 00:49, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 02:53:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 May 2015, at 03:16, LizR wrote:
On 14 May 2015 at 06:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
An abstract AI can exist in platonia relative to an abstract
environment in platonia.
That's all that comp claims, as far as I can tell.
Hmm... That is what the math says.
Then the STRONG
On 13 May 2015, at 20:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/13/2015 3:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 May 2015, at 00:49, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 02:53:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The recording is a distinctly different computation, because
they do
not behave
On 5/14/2015 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 May 2015, at 20:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/13/2015 3:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 May 2015, at 00:49, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 02:53:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The recording is a distinctly different
On 5/14/2015 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 May 2015, at 20:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/13/2015 3:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 May 2015, at 00:49, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 02:53:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The recording is a distinctly different
On 13 May 2015, at 03:52, LizR wrote:
Maudlin attempts to show that counterfactuals don't count, as it
were, by bolting on vast universes of counterfactual-handling
machinery to his already unfeasibly large thought experiment. The
MWI does the same sort of thing for free,
It does not.
On 13 May 2015, at 00:49, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 02:53:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The recording is a distinctly different computation, because they do
not behave identically on all counterfactuals.
And that is all what is needed in the MGA to proceed.
Bruno
On 5/13/2015 3:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 May 2015, at 00:49, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 02:53:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The recording is a distinctly different computation, because they do
not behave identically on all counterfactuals.
And that is all
On 14 May 2015 at 06:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
An abstract AI can exist in platonia relative to an abstract environment
in platonia.
That's all that comp claims, as far as I can tell.
What I'm interested in is what makes the program/AI conscious. Bruno has
an answer, i.e.
On 13 May 2015 at 22:15, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 13 May 2015, at 03:52, LizR wrote:
Maudlin attempts to show that counterfactuals don't count, as it were, by
bolting on vast universes of counterfactual-handling machinery to his
already unfeasibly large thought experiment.
Maudlin attempts to show that counterfactuals don't count, as it were, by
bolting on vast universes of counterfactual-handling machinery to his
already unfeasibly large thought experiment. The MWI does the same sort of
thing for free, so if we assume it's the correct interpretation of QM we
get a
On 12 May 2015 at 17:36, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 04:28:16PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 15:18, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:06:49PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 14:14, Russell
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 02:53:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The recording is a distinctly different computation, because they do
not behave identically on all counterfactuals.
And that is all what is needed in the MGA to proceed.
Bruno
Only if it is assumed to be absurd that the
On 12 May 2015, at 06:57, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/11/2015 9:28 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 15:18, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:06:49PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 14:14, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Why would
On 12 May 2015, at 07:36, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 04:28:16PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 15:18, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:06:49PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 14:14, Russell Standish
On 12 May 2015, at 10:55, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 17:36, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 04:28:16PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 15:18, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:06:49PM +1200, LizR
On 10 May 2015, at 23:48, LizR wrote:
It still seems to me that the environment is irrelevant, in that
given comp the brain or computer can be cut off and inputs (in
principle) mimicked - even if those inputs are due to quantum
entanglement. Hence the MGA at leasts starts on a sound
On 11 May 2015 at 14:23, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:43:07PM +1200, LizR wrote:
How can the environment be different if all the inputs are recorded and
replayed?
Maybe I've completely missed the point here.
If the environment cannot be
On 12 May 2015 at 15:18, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:06:49PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 14:14, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Why would we assume that it wouldn't make a difference? That has never
been made clear.
On 5/11/2015 9:28 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 15:18, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:06:49PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 14:14, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 04:28:16PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 15:18, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:06:49PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 14:14, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Why would we assume that it
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:42:06PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 11 May 2015 at 14:23, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:43:07PM +1200, LizR wrote:
How can the environment be different if all the inputs are recorded and
replayed?
Maybe I've
On 12 May 2015 at 14:14, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Why would we assume that it wouldn't make a difference? That has never
been made clear.
For the same reason the calculator repeats the same calculation given the
same starting state and inputs. This is surely inherent in
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:06:49PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 12 May 2015 at 14:14, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Why would we assume that it wouldn't make a difference? That has never
been made clear.
For the same reason the calculator repeats the same calculation given
On 11 May 2015 at 12:56, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
ISTM that the environment _is_ important, but that it can be simulated
or replayed so long as the conscious entity's inputs remain unchanged.
Sorry, that's what I meant. I don't seem to be expressing myself very well.
I
ISTM that the environment _is_ important, but that it can be simulated
or replayed so long as the conscious entity's inputs remain unchanged.
The reason why it is important is that consciousness must be awareness
about something. That something is the other of the self-other
distinction, and we
On 11 May 2015 at 13:40, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:14:45PM +1200, LizR wrote:
That leads to why counterfactual correctness is important. If a
conscious program were not counterfactually correct about it's
environment, particularly if it
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:43:07PM +1200, LizR wrote:
How can the environment be different if all the inputs are recorded and
replayed?
Maybe I've completely missed the point here.
If the environment cannot be different, then there is nothing for the
consciousness to be aware of. There
It still seems to me that the environment is irrelevant, in that given comp
the brain or computer can be cut off and inputs (in principle) mimicked -
even if those inputs are due to quantum entanglement. Hence the MGA at
leasts starts on a sound footing, with the entire computation including
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 01:14:45PM +1200, LizR wrote:
That leads to why counterfactual correctness is important. If a
conscious program were not counterfactually correct about it's
environment, particularly if it is completely unchanged with respect
to changes in the environment, there
On 9 May 2015 at 19:39, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 05:12:02PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
This reminds me of Putnam's a rock implements every finite state
machine argument. According to some one time pad the rock implements
any computation, but
On 09 May 2015, at 03:48, smitra wrote:
On 01-05-2015 17:59, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Apr 2015, at 17:07, smitra wrote:
On 30-04-2015 09:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 30 April 2015 at 13:20, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
The way I understand
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 05:12:02PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
This reminds me of Putnam's a rock implements every finite state
machine argument. According to some one time pad the rock implements
any computation, but this is obviously useless as a computer, and no
more interesting
On 5/7/2015 11:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If the string of bits is all that is required for conscious, then the cable connected to
the camera, or the optic nerve would be visually conscious. But I think those bits need
to be interpreted, by the Mars Rover's software, or by the visual cortex, for
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2015, at 04:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Counterfactual correctness has not been shown to be necessary -- it is
just an ad hoc move to save the argument.
Counterfactual correctness
If the string of bits is all that is required for conscious, then the cable
connected to the camera, or the optic nerve would be visually conscious.
But I think those bits need to be interpreted, by the Mars Rover's
software, or by the visual cortex, for there to be visual quaila. The bits
alone
On 5/7/2015 11:10 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Recordings, absent interpretation, are devoid of meaning and don't exist for anyone
(like the unheard tree fall). Absent interpretation any string of bits is meaningless
because depending on how it is interpreted it could mean anything (see one time pad
On 08 May 2015, at 03:30, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 May 2015, at 09:47, Bruce Kellett wrote
If a non-physicist shows that they do not really understand the
Standard Model of particle physics, or the Higgs mechanism, then I
attempt to explain it to the in simple
On 8 May 2015 at 16:10, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2015, at 04:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Counterfactual correctness has not been shown to be necessary -- it is
just
2015-05-08 8:39 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 5/7/2015 11:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If the string of bits is all that is required for conscious, then the
cable connected to the camera, or the optic nerve would be visually
conscious. But I think those bits need to be
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:39 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/7/2015 11:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If the string of bits is all that is required for conscious, then the
cable connected to the camera, or the optic nerve would be visually
conscious. But I think those bits need to
On 08 May 2015, at 10:00, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-08 8:39 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 5/7/2015 11:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If the string of bits is all that is required for conscious, then
the cable connected to the camera, or the optic nerve would be
visually
On 5/8/2015 12:12 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 8 May 2015 at 16:10, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2015, at 04:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Counterfactual correctness has
On 01-05-2015 17:59, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Apr 2015, at 17:07, smitra wrote:
On 30-04-2015 09:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 30 April 2015 at 13:20, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
The way I understand it, nothing happens in Platonia. Which is to
build it and will explain it later.
Your 'hanging in there' is appreciated.
Cheers
Colin
-Original Message-
From: John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
Sent: 7/05/2015 7:03 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The dovetailer disassembled
Colin
On 5/8/2015 1:00 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-08 8:39 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net:
On 5/7/2015 11:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If the string of bits is all that is required for conscious, then the cable
connected to the camera, or the
Bruno Marchal wrote:
There are two things.
1) the mathematical facts, well known by the experts (who even asked me
to suppress any explanation on that as it is trivial for anybody having
grasp the ten first hours of course in that matter) that the notion of
computability is mathematical,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 May 2015, at 09:47, Bruce Kellett wrote
If a non-physicist shows that they do not really understand the
Standard Model of particle physics, or the Higgs mechanism, then I
attempt to explain it to the in simple terms.
Yes, but not on someone talking always like it
No, I am not. Cats are made of matter, but not all things made of matter
are cats -- some are dogs, some are rocks, and so on.
I think the major thrust here is not that you need a miracle to get
consciousness out of matter, although that is part of what Bruno is saying.
Instead, his point is
On 6 May 2015 at 14:19, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 10:45:29AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The main flaws in the logic, or at least weaknesses that I have
pointed out, are in the move of the UD into Platonia while claiming
On 06 May 2015, at 21:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/6/2015 1:06 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 9:19 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
On 06 May 2015, at 21:24, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/6/2015 1:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Indeed it is the truth of the high measure of the locally
computable physics which has to make the physical law persistent.
That measure is mathematically definite, and this is what allow the
comp
On 06 May 2015, at 22:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/6/2015 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
and that human consciousness is at some level emulable by a
computer programme. (This includes the possibility that the brain
is a quantum computer, since a QC can be emulated by a classical
computer.)
On 06 May 2015, at 21:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/5/2015 11:53 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:50 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 1:24 GMT+02:00 meekerdb
On 06 May 2015, at 21:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/6/2015 12:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 9:19 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
On 06 May 2015, at 23:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/6/2015 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Well, you do believe in consciousness as you agree with comp1,
like John Clark, and others.
Comp1 involves the notion of consciousness, by assuming it
invariant for some digital substitution.
But only a
On 06 May 2015, at 21:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/6/2015 1:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2015, at 08:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:50 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On 7 May 2015 at 19:47, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
There are two things.
1) the mathematical facts, well known by the experts (who even asked me
to suppress any explanation on that as it is trivial for anybody having
grasp the ten first hours of
On 07 May 2015, at 09:47, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
There are two things.
1) the mathematical facts, well known by the experts (who even
asked me to suppress any explanation on that as it is trivial for
anybody having grasp the ten first hours of course in that matter)
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 1:24 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
It would be proof that your consciousness could be realized in a
digital computer
In the end it is just a program and the external world is only memory
location the program can access... What you call
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 1:24 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
It would
On 06 May 2015, at 02:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/5/2015 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 May 2015, at 09:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-05 8:09 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net It's
not my theory. It's not mine either... do we have to have
On 06 May 2015, at 08:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:50 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 1:24 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
It would be proof that your
On 06 May 2015, at 04:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 10:45:29AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The main flaws in the logic, or at least weaknesses that I have
pointed out, are in the move of the UD into Platonia while claiming
that it still computes in
On 06 May 2015, at 01:43, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/5/2015 1:40 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-05 9:42 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Even if you do all that, it will not be strong evidence for
computationalism. It would, certainly, be evidence
On 06 May 2015, at 09:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 1:24 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 06 May 2015, at 03:15, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 10:45:29AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The main flaws in the logic, or at least weaknesses that I have
pointed out, are in the move of the UD into Platonia while claiming
that it still computes in exactly the same way
On 06 May 2015, at 02:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 6 May 2015 at 11:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net It seems
to be a continuing problem on this list that comp is used
for idea that parts of ones brain could be replaced with an
equivalent digital device and preserve
2015-05-06 1:24 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 5/5/2015 1:40 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-05 9:42 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-05 9:08 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:50 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 1:24 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
It would be proof that your consciousness could be realized in a
digital
On 6 May 2015, at 1:11 pm, Colin Hales col.ha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:21 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
It also appears to me that the computing entity would not be conscious for
the same reason computed flight physics is not flight.
I don't have the
2015-05-06 9:19 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 1:24 GMT+02:00 meekerdb
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 9:19 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 1:24 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
It would be proof that your consciousness could be realized in a
digital computer
In the end it is just a program and the external world
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2015, at 04:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Counterfactual correctness has not been shown to be necessary -- it is
just an ad hoc move to save the argument.
Counterfactual correctness is the bone of what *is* a computation. To
have a computation, you need a
On 6 May 2015 at 22:20, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I am astonished that you make that comp1/comp2 suggestion, in this list,
where precisely in this list, we can see that the argument that comp1 does
not imply comp2 are flawed---and usually you, like others, you did see the
flaws
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2015, at 04:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
For there to be a difference, the steps have to be performed in real
time, and that notion of real time is not available in Platonia.
Nor in any block universe.
That is just a lazy snipe, Bruno. I have explained how a time
On 5/6/2015 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
and that human consciousness is at some level emulable by a computer programme. (This
includes the possibility that the brain is a quantum computer, since a QC can be
emulated by a classical computer.)
Maybe we should distinguish comp1 and comp2 or
Colin:
some 15-20 years ago I read your texts - even made some tenets part of my
worldview text. Now I had difficulty to force myself reading along your
post.
Maybe I got older, maybe your style became more sophisticated. Both?
I still struggle with the 'jargon' of this (and other) lists and took
On 5/6/2015 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Well, you do believe in consciousness as you agree with comp1, like John Clark, and
others.
Comp1 involves the notion of consciousness, by assuming it invariant for some digital
substitution.
But only a physical digital device - not just abstract
On 5/6/2015 1:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Indeed it is the truth of the high measure of the locally computable physics which has
to make the physical law persistent. That measure is mathematically definite, and this
is what allow the comp hypothesis to be tested.
What measure is that?
Brent
On 5/6/2015 1:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2015, at 08:53, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:50 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
On 5/5/2015 11:53 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:50 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On 5/6/2015 12:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 9:19 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
On 5/6/2015 1:06 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 9:19 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
On 06 May 2015, at 14:28, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2015, at 04:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Counterfactual correctness has not been shown to be necessary --
it is just an ad hoc move to save the argument.
Counterfactual correctness is the bone of what *is* a
On 06 May 2015, at 15:15, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2015, at 04:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
For there to be a difference, the steps have to be performed in
real time, and that notion of real time is not available in
Platonia.
Nor in any block universe.
That is
I don't really see why that's necessary... Every moment feels like it's
now. Idk, it helps to picture a 2d universe where time for those in the 2d
universe is a spatial one in our universe. The 2d universe would consist of
a stack of slices or pages, like a flip book that makes an animation when
On 06 May 2015, at 13:10, LizR wrote:
On 6 May 2015 at 22:20, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I am astonished that you make that comp1/comp2 suggestion, in this
list, where precisely in this list, we can see that the argument
that comp1 does not imply comp2 are flawed---and usually
On 06 May 2015, at 10:06, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 9:19 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
On 5/4/2015 11:37 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 5 May 2015 at 09:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/4/2015 3:31 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 5 May 2015 at 08:07, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/4/2015 11:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tuesday, May 5,
On 5/5/2015 1:40 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-05 9:42 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-05 9:08 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/5/2015 1:40 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-05 9:42 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Even if you do all that, it will not be strong evidence for
computationalism. It would, certainly, be evidence for strong AI,
but that just means that
LizR wrote:
On 6 May 2015 at 11:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
It seems to be a continuing problem on this list that comp is used
for idea that parts of ones brain could be replaced with an
equivalent digital device and preserve ones consciousness. That's a
fairly widely
Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 10:45:29AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The main flaws in the logic, or at least weaknesses that I have
pointed out, are in the move of the UD into Platonia while claiming
that it still computes in exactly the same way as a physical
computer; and
To be fair, in the last 10 years the everything list has at least
influenced one genuine proper scientist, namely Max Tegmark. (There may be
others of whom I am ignorant, but Mr T acknowledges the influece of the EL
in his book Our Mathematical Universe. I would add Bruno as a second
example, but
On 5/5/2015 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 May 2015, at 09:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-05 8:09 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net It's not my theory. It's
not mine either... do we have to have everything sort out before discussing ? You
can't have
On 6 May 2015 at 11:10, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Right. And we identify them as the same person based on the continuity of
their physical being - even if they are not conscious.
Specifically because physical continuity ensures continuity of memory
(normally). Should it become
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 10:45:29AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The main flaws in the logic, or at least weaknesses that I have
pointed out, are in the move of the UD into Platonia while claiming
that it still computes in exactly the same way as a physical
computer; and the MGA, which is only
on. .
Cheers
Colin
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
Sent: 6/05/2015 10:28 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The dovetailer disassembled
On 6 May 2015 at 11:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It seems
1 - 100 of 288 matches
Mail list logo
