Re: Predictions & duplications

2001-10-11 Thread Russell Standish
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] : > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > So you NEED something additional to explain the ongoing regularity. > > > You need something like the Speed Prior, which greatly favors regular > > > futures over others. > > > > I take issue

RE: Immortality

2001-10-11 Thread Marchal
Charles Goodwin wrote: > >> -Original Message- >> From: Brent Meeker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Wednesday, 10 October 2001 2:23 a.m. >> >> But then why do you say that a duplicate of your brain processes in a >> computer would not be conscious. You seem to be >> discriminating be

Re: Predictions & duplications

2001-10-11 Thread Juho Pennanen
I tried to understand the problem that doctors Schmidhuber and Standish are discussing by describing it in the most concrete terms I could, below. (I admit beforehand I couldn't follow all the details and do not know all the papers and theorems referred to, so this could be irrelevant.) So

Re: Predictions & duplications

2001-10-11 Thread juergen
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] : > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > So you NEED something additional to explain the ongoing regularity. > > You need something like the Speed Prior, which greatly favors regular > > futures over others. > > I take issue with this statement. In Occam's Razor I show ho

Re: Immortality

2001-10-11 Thread Marchal
Brent Meeker wrote: >OK, I understand - I think. But as I understand your ontology, >everything is immaterial - even matter. So the question is, are there >consciousness' that are not associated with material things. Well, in a sense no "consciousness" are associated with, let us say, substa

Re: Predictions & duplications

2001-10-11 Thread juergen
> > > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] : > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > So you NEED something additional to explain the ongoing regularity. > > > > You need something like the Speed Prior, which greatly favors regular > > > > futures over others. > > > > > > I take issue with this state

Re: Predictions & duplications

2001-10-11 Thread Russell Standish
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Huh? A PDF? You mean a probability density function? On a continuous set? Probability Distribution Function. And PDF's are defined on all measurable sets, not just continuous ones. > No! I am talking about probability distributions on describable objects. >

RE: Immortality

2001-10-11 Thread Charles Goodwin
Quick reply as usual 'cos I'm at work! :-)   But surely the level of substitution would be non-fundamental, i.e. above the level of matter (Whatever that is or isn't) and hence would be a *simulation* of a person? I don't understand how one survives through the substitution (or perhaps I've