On 27 Aug 2009, at 15:04, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2009/8/27 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
You are right. A simpler example is a dreamer and a rock, and the
whole universe. They have locally the same input and output: none!
So
they are functionally identical, yet very different
2009/8/27 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
On 27 Aug, 08:54, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/26 David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com:
This is because if consciousness is a computational process then it is
independant of the (physical or ... virtual) implementation. If I
On Aug 28, 6:58 am, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
So how are you going to get around Cox's
theorem?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox%27s_theorem
Cox's theorem is referring to laws of probability for making
predictions. I agree Bayesian inference is best for this. But it
On 27 Aug, 20:11, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/27 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
and hence that it can't
in and of itself tell us anything fundamental about ontology.
I don't think it revelas it sown ontology. OTOH, it must somehow
be taken accounto fi in any
On Aug 27, 7:35 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Zermelo Fraenkel theory has full transfinite induction power, but is
still limited by Gödel's incompleteness. What Gentzen showed is that
you can prove the consistency of ARITHMETIC by a transfinite induction
up to
On 28 Aug, 02:20, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
the door is opened to some grander metaphysical speculation
concerning the nature of the world. For example, it is often noted
that physics characterizes its basic entities only extrinsically, in
terms of their relations to
On 27 Aug 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote:
On 24 Aug, 16:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Aug 2009, at 21:10, Brent Meeker wrote:
But you see Brent, here you confirm that materialist are religious in
the way they try to explain, or explain away the mind body problem. I
On 28 Aug, 08:42, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Aug 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote:
On 24 Aug, 16:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Aug 2009, at 21:10, Brent Meeker wrote:
But you see Brent, here you confirm that materialist are religious in
the
On 28 Aug, 02:27, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Flammarion wrote:
On 21 Aug, 21:01, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Flammarion wrote:
Do you think that if you scanned my brain right down to the atomic
level,
you still wouldn't have captured all the
On 28 Aug, 09:50, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 28 Aug, 07:27, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/27 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
On 27 Aug, 08:54, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/26 David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com:
This is
On 28 Aug, 07:27, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/27 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
On 27 Aug, 08:54, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/26 David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com:
This is because if consciousness is a computational process then it is
On 21 Aug, 20:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Aug 2009, at 09:33, Flammarion wrote:
On 20 Aug, 00:28, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Aug 2009, at 22:21, Flammarion wrote:
Where he says computation can happen without any physicial process
at
all. I
On 28 Aug, 12:53, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Aug 2009, at 10:52, Flammarion wrote:
On 28 Aug, 08:42, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Aug 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote:
On 24 Aug, 16:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Aug 2009, at
On 22 Aug, 00:38, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 Aug, 19:04, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Explaining away qua reduction is nto the same as
explaining away qua elimination.
Well, either way he's explaining away, as you yourself point out
below. But
On 28 Aug 2009, at 10:52, Flammarion wrote:
On 28 Aug, 08:42, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Aug 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote:
On 24 Aug, 16:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Aug 2009, at 21:10, Brent Meeker wrote:
But you see Brent, here you
2009/8/28 David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com:
Well, I don't think that it is just words, but it can be difficult to
see this because of the heavy freight of association carried by the
standard vocabulary. At root, if one doesn't intuit the 'personal'
(in the most general sense - e.g. Bruno's
On 25 Aug, 08:22, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Aug 2009, at 22:38, Flammarion wrote:
That is false. You are tacitly assuming that PM has to be argued
with the full force of necessity --
I don't remember. I don't find trace of what makes you think so.
Where?
Well,
On 28 Aug, 13:51, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
Is functionalism monism, property dualism, or might it even be a form
of substance dualism?
Monism
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
2009/8/28 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Is your experience the same? Do you experience frabjous? If you
put melody for frabjous, you've got synsathesia. I'd say that
functional equivalence is relative to the level. At *some* level
equal-input-output=equal-experience, but not at
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2009/8/27 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
On 27 Aug, 08:54, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/26 David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com:
This is because if consciousness is a computational process then it is
independant of the (physical or ... virtual)
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Aug 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote:
On 24 Aug, 16:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Aug 2009, at 21:10, Brent Meeker wrote:
But you see Brent, here you confirm that materialist are religious in
the way they try to explain, or explain away the
On 28 Aug 2009, at 14:46, Flammarion wrote:
On 22 Aug, 08:21, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Aug 2009, at 10:28, Flammarion wrote:
1. Something that ontologically exists can only be caused or
generated
by something else that does
2. I ontologically exist
3. According
Flammarion wrote:
On 28 Aug, 02:27, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Flammarion wrote:
On 21 Aug, 21:01, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Flammarion wrote:
Do you think that if you scanned my brain right down to the atomic
level,
you still wouldn't have captured
On 28 Aug 2009, at 10:47, marc.geddes wrote:
On Aug 27, 7:35 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Zermelo Fraenkel theory has full transfinite induction power, but is
still limited by Gödel's incompleteness. What Gentzen showed is that
you can prove the consistency of ARITHMETIC
On 28 Aug 2009, at 13:47, Flammarion wrote:
On 21 Aug, 20:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Aug 2009, at 09:33, Flammarion wrote:
I can only hope you will work on the UDA+MGA, and understand that
non-theoretical truth have to be redefined as theoretical
possibilities
marc.geddes wrote:
On Aug 28, 6:58 am, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
So how are you going to get around Cox's
theorem?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox%27s_theorem
Cox's theorem is referring to laws of probability for making
predictions. I agree Bayesian inference is
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2009/8/28 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Is your experience the same? Do you experience frabjous? If you
put melody for frabjous, you've got synsathesia. I'd say that
functional equivalence is relative to the level. At *some* level
2009/8/28 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2009/8/27 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
On 27 Aug, 08:54, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/26 David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com:
This is because if consciousness is a computational process then it
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2009/8/28 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2009/8/27 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
On 27 Aug, 08:54, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/26 David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com:
This is because if consciousness is a
On 28 Aug 2009, at 17:58, Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Aug 2009, at 19:21, Flammarion wrote:
On 24 Aug, 16:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Aug 2009, at 21:10, Brent Meeker wrote:
But you see Brent, here you confirm that materialist are
religious
marc.geddes wrote:
On Aug 27, 7:35 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Zermelo Fraenkel theory has full transfinite induction power, but is
still limited by Gödel's incompleteness. What Gentzen showed is that
you can prove the consistency of ARITHMETIC by a transfinite
2009/8/28 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2009/8/28 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2009/8/27 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
On 27 Aug, 08:54, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/26 David Nyman
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2009/8/28 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2009/8/28 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2009/8/27 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
On 27 Aug, 08:54, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/26 David Nyman
2009/8/29 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2009/8/28 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2009/8/28 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2009/8/27 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
On 27 Aug, 08:54, Quentin
On Aug 29, 2:36 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Obviously (?, by Gödel) Arithmetic (arithmetical truth) is infinitely
larger that what you can prove in ZF theory.
Godel’s theorem doesn’t mean that anything is *absolutely*
undecidable; it just means that not all truths can
On Aug 29, 5:21 am, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Look at Winbugs or R. They compute with some pretty complex priors -
that's what Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were invented for.
Complex =/= uncomputable.
Techniques such the Monte Carlo method don’t scale well.
36 matches
Mail list logo
