Ronald,
On 25 Dec 2010, at 18:48, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno:
Given what I know about the laws of Physics. A matter human in a
matter Universe(similar to ours) is Consciousness and self aware. An
antimatter human in an antimatter Universe should be expected to be
Consciousness and self aware.
Bruno:
Given what I know about the laws of Physics. A matter human in a
matter Universe(similar to ours) is Consciousness and self aware. An
antimatter human in an antimatter Universe should be expected to be
Consciousness and self aware.
I do not understand the second to last paragraph. One
Ronald,
On 21 Dec 2010, at 21:46, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno:
Behind in this group. I think that if you had a this Universe and
replace the particles with its antiparticles.there should be no
difference from the human observer POV.
Again, this is a simple consequence of mechanism + a level
On 21 Dec 2010, at 21:40, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/21/2010 5:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Dec 2010, at 20:01, Brent Meeker wrote:
Russell has given the correct answer. Here by mind I mean the
conscious first person mind. By UDA-8 (MGA), consciousness is not
attached to the
On 20 Dec 2010, at 20:01, Brent Meeker wrote:
Russell has given the correct answer. Here by mind I mean the
conscious first person mind. By UDA-8 (MGA), consciousness is not
attached to the physical running of a computer, but is attached to
the logical number-theoretical relations
On 20 Dec 2010, at 17:15, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 6:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 20 Dec 2010, at 03:15, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
But then a digital machine cannot see the
On 12/21/2010 5:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Dec 2010, at 20:01, Brent Meeker wrote:
Russell has given the correct answer. Here by mind I mean the
conscious first person mind. By UDA-8 (MGA), consciousness is not
attached to the physical running of a computer, but is attached to
the
Bruno:
Behind in this group. I think that if you had a this Universe and
replace the particles with its antiparticles.there should be no
difference from the human observer POV.
Ronald
On Dec 20, 4:51 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Dec 2010, at 18:29, ronaldheld wrote:
On 19 Dec 2010, at 18:29, ronaldheld wrote:
Jason
I would think normally the implant should work as well. Being
Bajorean, could the missing essence be the influence of the Prophets?
Data and the EMH should be able to pass the Turing test.
Maybe I am missing something. A matter human in a
On 20 Dec 2010, at 03:15, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
But then a digital machine cannot see the difference between its
brain emulated by a physical device, of by the true existence of the
proof of the Sigma_1 relation
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 6:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Dec 2010, at 03:15, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But then a digital machine cannot see the difference between its brain
emulated by a physical
On 12/20/2010 3:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Dec 2010, at 03:15, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But then a digital machine cannot see the difference between its
brain emulated by a
Jason
I would think normally the implant should work as well. Being
Bajorean, could the missing essence be the influence of the Prophets?
Data and the EMH should be able to pass the Turing test.
Maybe I am missing something. A matter human in a matter universe
should function the same as an
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But then a digital machine cannot see the difference between its brain
emulated by a physical device, of by the true existence of the proof of the
Sigma_1 relation which exists independently of us in arithmetic. Some
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 09:15:20PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
No. The running of a program does NOT create a mind. It just makes it
possible for a mind to manifest itself relatively to you.
The mind is already related to the platonic relations between the numbers
which exist in an infinity of
Bruno and Jason
The complexity issue concerns me, perhaps because of the Deep space
9 episode:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Life_Support_(Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine)
Ronald
On Dec 16, 11:39 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Ronald,
I remember that episode. I thought it was quite a departure from the
atheistic slant that was usual to star trek.
( For those not familiar with the scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihdI8U9eS4c#t=2m30s )
They seemed to suggest in the episode that the operation failed not because
of
On 15 Dec 2010, at 14:57, ronaldheld wrote:
Jason:
I do not think a neutron take more trhan a finite amount of voltage
to be able to fire. I do wonder if merely replacing the bio parts by
processing hardware, do you lose the part of the complexity of the
mind? Np problem with an antimatter
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:57 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
Jason:
I do not think a neutron take more trhan a finite amount of voltage
to be able to fire. I do wonder if merely replacing the bio parts by
processing hardware, do you lose the part of the complexity of the
mind?
On 14 Dec 2010, at 20:24, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/14/2010 7:30 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Ron,
I think the path to seeing the mind as a program is easier in this
way:
1. It's not what the parts of the brain are made of its how they
function which determines behavior
2. This leads to the
On 14 Dec 2010, at 16:30, Jason Resch wrote:
Ron,
I think the path to seeing the mind as a program is easier in this
way:
1. It's not what the parts of the brain are made of its how they
function which determines behavior
2. This leads to the idea of multiple realizability
Jason:
I do not think a neutron take more trhan a finite amount of voltage
to be able to fire. I do wonder if merely replacing the bio parts by
processing hardware, do you lose the part of the complexity of the
mind? Np problem with an antimatter man and mind.
Ronald
On Dec 14, 10:30 am,
Ron,
I think the path to seeing the mind as a program is easier in this way:
1. It's not what the parts of the brain are made of its how they function
which determines behavior
2. This leads to the idea of multiple realizability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_realizability (Brains can be
On 12/14/2010 7:30 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Ron,
I think the path to seeing the mind as a program is easier in this way:
1. It's not what the parts of the brain are made of its how they
function which determines behavior
2. This leads to the idea of multiple realizability
Bruno:
Thanks for the weekend wishes.
I believe the Brain runs programs, in parallel, but are they the
Mind, and are they able to be run as Turing emulable programs with no
impact to one's consciousness?
Ronald
On Dec 11, 7:51 am, Bruno
Bruno:
I stand corrected on steps 6 and 7. I believe I understand your UDA
diagrams. Before I can comment, I need to decide waht progrmas are and
are not Turing emulatable, and if the brain runs a program, parallel
programs, or something else.
Ronald
On Dec 7, 4:10 pm, Bruno Marchal
On 08 Dec 2010, at 22:15, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/8/2010 11:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Dec 2010, at 22:40, Brent Meeker wrote:
My reservation about step 8 is that the activity, in order to be a
computation, must have an interpretation.
Hmm... This is already a bit
On 07 Dec 2010, at 22:40, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/7/2010 1:10 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Dec 2010, at 19:00, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno(and others)
I am going to do this in two posts. The first is my interpretation
of your UDA. Since the Brain is a Turing emulatable program
running
On 12/8/2010 11:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Dec 2010, at 22:40, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/7/2010 1:10 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Dec 2010, at 19:00, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno(and others)
I am going to do this in two posts. The first is my interpretation
of your UDA. Since the
On 12/7/2010 1:10 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Dec 2010, at 19:00, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno(and others)
I am going to do this in two posts. The first is my interpretation
of your UDA. Since the Brain is a Turing emulatable program running on
a biological platform(to start), steps 1-5 are
Bruno:
I looked at UDA via the SANE paper. I am not certain the the mind is
Turing emulatable, but will move onward. Using Star Trek transporter
concepts, I can accept steps 1 through 5. Step 6 takes only the mind
and sends it to a finite computational device or the entire person
into a device
On 02 Dec 2010, at 15:51, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno:
I looked at UDA via the SANE paper. I am not certain the the mind is
Turing emulatable, but will move onward.
OK. It is better to say brain instead of mind. The doctor proposes an
artificial digital brain, and keep silent on what is the
Jason:
I gave it over 2 years ago, but did not get any argumentive
questions. Can I attach the prior charts here?
Ronald
On Nov 30, 11:06 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Ronald,
Have you given this talk in the past to a similar audience? What
Thanks Jason. Not certain how all of that helps. I will have think
more before I answer Bruno.
Ronald
On Nov 28, 5:52 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Nov 2010, at 19:05, ronaldheld wrote:
Jason(and any others)
Both. Level IV
Ronald,
Have you given this talk in the past to a similar audience? What kind of
objections did people raise? Perhaps that would help us formulate a line of
reasoning which would be more effective.
Jason
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:15 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Jason.
On 27 Nov 2010, at 19:05, ronaldheld wrote:
Jason(and any others)
Both. Level IV Universe is hard to explain even if real. Bruno's
reality is equally hard to convincing present.
Ronald
Do you agree/understand that if we are machine then we are in
principle
Jason(and any others)
Both. Level IV Universe is hard to explain even if real. Bruno's
reality is equally hard to convincing present.
Ronald
On Nov 26, 12:02 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:50 PM, ronaldheld
Ron,
I think the most convincing approach is to start with how unlikely a
universe with life is. I like how Loenard Susskind explains it here:
http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Is-the-Universe-Fine-Tuned-for-Life-and-Mind-Leonard-Susskind-/431
There are a few other approaches, such as
Ronald,
There is also a thread with some other good justifications for the belief in
everything:
https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/6c77322d47582932/16f35cf51ed74d1c?lnk=gstq=wei+dai#16f35cf51ed74d1c
Jason
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Jason Resch
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:50 PM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
Jason:
I see what you are saying up at our level of understanding, I do not
know how to present that in a technically convincing matter.
Ronald
Which message in
Jason:
I see what you are saying up at our level of understanding, I do not
know how to present that in a technically convincing matter.
Ronald
On Nov 20, 7:07 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Ronald,
Right, I think that is what he
Jason:
Do you want to add more? I know Q meant that mental exploration was
more important than the physical
.Ronald
On Nov 18, 1:53 pm, Jason jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Ronald,
Hope it isn't too late. I think the last line from Q in the last
episode of
Ronald,
Right, I think that is what he implied and it is something I agree with.
There is only so much that can be learned about this universe, and physical
exploration by locomotion or even observation is limited in many ways.
Rather than moving around to other places to see what can be, with
Several years ago, I gave a talk mostly based on Tegmark's work. I
would like to give an updated talk with other POVs within 40 minutes.
Any suggestions, considering the Trek fan audience, would be
appreciated.
Ronald
--
You received this message because you
44 matches
Mail list logo
