eness, (which I
>>> have explained many times, but I can do it again), is constructively
>>> antireductionist theory. The Löb-Gödelian machines, those who obeys to the
>>> probability/consistency laws of Solovays (cf G and G*) can defeat any
>>> complete theory a
> On 14 Jun 2019, at 12:00, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
> wrote:
>
> Computers don't exist. "Computers" is just an idea in consciousness.
Physical computers are idea in consciousness, but that does not made them not
existing in some way.
If not, you are like telling us than the idea
On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 3:46:54 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Jun 2019, at 11:36, Philip Thrift >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 4:08:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13 Jun 2019, at 15:31, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, June 13,
transfinite paths
>>>> it get involved into, and why Reality is beyond the computable, yet
>>>> partially computable, partially and locally manageable, partially
>>>> observable, partially and locally inductively inferable. Etc.
>>>>
>>>> Even
> On 14 Jun 2019, at 11:36, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 4:08:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 13 Jun 2019, at 15:31, Philip Thrift >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 7:53:40 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>> On 12 Jun 2019, at
Computers don't exist. "Computers" is just an idea in consciousness.
On Friday, 14 June 2019 12:10:31 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Only computers do computing. Programming a computer is not “computing” per
> se, although it is something which emerges from computations in arithmetic
> when
t the arithmetical reality is far beyond the computable, but from
>>>> inside, the sigma_1 (ultra-mini-tniy part of that reality) is already
>>>> bigger than we could hope to formalise in ZF or ZF + Large cardinal.
>>>>
>>>> Digital mechanism, well unde
On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 4:08:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 13 Jun 2019, at 15:31, Philip Thrift >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 7:53:40 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12 Jun 2019, at 11:50, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 12, 2019
> On 13 Jun 2019, at 20:07, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
> wrote:
>
> Working software developers don't do "computing”.
Only computers do computing. Programming a computer is not “computing” per se,
although it is something which emerges from computations in arithmetic when we
assume
> On 13 Jun 2019, at 15:31, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 7:53:40 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 12 Jun 2019, at 11:50, Philip Thrift >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 2:06:55 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>> Brain doesn't exist.
Working software developers don't do "computing". They just do get-set.
mail.getMessage(), mail.setMessage("Wow! Super-duper computing!");
On Thursday, 13 June 2019 15:44:22 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Also,without computing, you would not been able to send your post on this
> list. You are
On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 7:53:40 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 12 Jun 2019, at 11:50, Philip Thrift >
> wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 2:06:55 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>>
>> Brain doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.
>>
>
> Point out a place
> On 12 Jun 2019, at 11:50, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 2:06:55 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
> Brain doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.
>
> Point out a place where consciousness exists, and there is no brain there.
Consciousness does not
> On 12 Jun 2019, at 09:06, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
> wrote:
>
> Brain doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.
I agree. More precisely “brains do not exist ontologically”, they are local
phenomenological numbers experiences. But at least, mechanism explains where
> On 12 Jun 2019, at 08:25, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
> wrote:
>
> Of course is empty since it doesn't mean anything. As John Searle said it:
> you can let a pen fall from a height and you can consider it to calculate x =
> x0 + yt + gt^2/2.
That is typically not a computation,
> On 12 Jun 2019, at 07:11, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> So then computing is not empty.
>
> Consciousness itself is intrinsic (vs. extrinsic) computing.
I agree. Now, computer science shows many intrinsic notions emerges from
computing notions. Some are provably not amenable top any
> On 11 Jun 2019, at 23:18, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
> wrote:
>
> Computing = empty concept.
I would say the exact contrary. It is an open concept. The math needed to
define a computation, which is no more than “very elementary arithmetic” is
automatically essentially undecidable.
e Church-Turing thesis and incompleteness, (which I have
>> explained many times, but I can do it again), is constructively
>> antireductionist theory. The Löb-Gödelian machines, those who obeys to the
>> probability/consistency laws of Solovays (cf G and G*) can defeat any
>> com
On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 5:25:26 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> How do you go in dreams from one place to another ? Simple: you just
> change the qualia of space. Of course, probably the waking-state world
> indeed is a world shared by other consciousnesses, so space motion might
>
How do you go in dreams from one place to another ? Simple: you just change
the qualia of space. Of course, probably the waking-state world indeed is a
world shared by other consciousnesses, so space motion might have another
explanation than in dreams.
--
You received this message because
On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 5:06:27 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> The consciousness that we are familiar with always seems to be accompanied
> by the quale of "brain". But notice here that dogs and monkeys and ants are
> consciousnesses that don't feel themselves accompanied by the
The consciousness that we are familiar with always seems to be accompanied
by the quale of "brain". But notice here that dogs and monkeys and ants are
consciousnesses that don't feel themselves accompanied by the quale of
"brain". Only we seem to have discovered this. But exactly as they don't
On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 at 2:06:55 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> Brain doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.
>
Point out a place where consciousness exists, and there is no brain there.
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Brain doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
But that is *extrinsic*, not *intrinsic* computing.
*Real *computing is both.
https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/09/30/real-computationalism/
e.g.
An intrinsic program of brain development
Sarah Webb
https://www.nature.com/articles/stemcells.2008.120
@philipthroft
On Wednesday, June 12,
Of course is empty since it doesn't mean anything. As John Searle said it:
you can let a pen fall from a height and you can consider it to calculate x
= x0 + yt + gt^2/2. So is just words play, you can say about anything you
want that it "computes". Of course, besides consciousness.
On
So then computing is not empty.
Consciousness itself is *intrinsic* (vs. *extrinsic*) computing.
@philipthrift
On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 5:07:02 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> I work as a software developer, if, then, get, set.
>
> This is a game that I made in university just4fun:
>
And also a song that I made, why not:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8_n-Ljl8MU
--
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
I work as a software developer, if, then, get, set.
This is a game that I made in university just4fun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt8LFl7t2oE
On Wednesday, 12 June 2019 00:34:00 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 4:18:15 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>>
>>
Prove it's fake news put up or shut up.
On 6/11/2019 4:18 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
Computing = empty concept.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 4:18:15 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> Computing = empty concept.
>
Did you ever write (and run) programs?
What could be more fun?
(aside from sex)
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List"
Computing = empty concept.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web
sistency laws of Solovays (cf G and G*) can defeat any
>> complete theory anyone could conceive about them.
>>
>> Only numbers at the ontological level, OK, but the crazily interesting
>> things appears at the phenomenological levels, where things are no more very
>&g
to formalise in ZF or ZF + Large cardinal.
>>>
>>> Digital mechanism, well understood (meaning with understand the quasi
>>> direct link between the Church-Turing thesis and incompleteness, (which I
>>> have explained many times, but I can do it again), is construc
o obeys to the
>> probability/consistency laws of Solovays (cf G and G*) can defeat any
>> complete theory anyone could conceive about them.
>>
>> Only numbers at the ontological level, OK, but the crazily interesting
>> things appears at the phenomenological level
rect link between the Church-Turing thesis and incompleteness, (which I
>> have explained many times, but I can do it again), is constructively
>> antireductionist theory. The Löb-Gödelian machines, those who obeys to the
>> probability/consistency laws of Solovays (cf G and G*) can
> Only numbers at the ontological level, OK, but the crazily interesting things
> appears at the phenomenological levels, where things are no more very
> computable at all.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> Today is the last day of UCNC 2019.
>
> Program: http://www.ucnc2019.u
interesting
> things appears at the phenomenological levels, where things are no more
> very computable at all.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
Today is the last day of *UCNC 2019*.
Program: http://www.ucnc2019.uec.ac.jp/program.html
What the conference is about can be summed up as
*What is
38 matches
Mail list logo
