On 12 Sep 2009, at 16:42, Flammarion wrote:
On 11 Sep, 19:34, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Sep 2009, at 17:45, Flammarion wrote:
Once you say yes to the doctor, there is a clear sense in which
you (that is your third person relative computational state, the
one
the
John,
On 12 Sep 2009, at 17:01, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
the more I read here on the Church thesis the less I know about it.
Is there a short description in 'non-technical' words about the
'essence' you hold instrumental in the applications you apply?
I will explain in detail Church
Bruno,
Could you please clarify to a non-mathematician why the principle of
excluded middle is so central to your thesis (hopefully without using acronyms
like AUDA, UD etc.). Many modern schools of philosophy reject the idea. Thanks,
Marty,
Could you please clarify to a non-mathematician why the
principle of excluded middle is so central to your thesis (hopefully
without using acronyms like AUDA, UD etc.).
Without the excluded middle (A or not A), or without classical logic,
it is harder to prove non
2009/9/13 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
You regard doing the same computation as a purely formal (=
non-physical) critereon, but I think this is specious. It seems right
because we talk about a computation at a very high level of
abstraction. But when we ask what makes this causal
David Nyman wrote:
2009/9/13 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
You regard doing the same computation as a purely formal (=
non-physical) critereon, but I think this is specious. It seems right
because we talk about a computation at a very high level of
abstraction. But when we ask
2009/9/14 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Yes, of course I know it's *implicitly* physical, that's the problem.
The point is that evaluating CTM as a physical theory of mind
necessitates making the relation between experience and process
*explicitly* physical, and actually attempting
David Nyman wrote:
2009/9/14 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Yes, of course I know it's *implicitly* physical, that's the problem.
The point is that evaluating CTM as a physical theory of mind
necessitates making the relation between experience and process
*explicitly* physical, and
The paper referred to below is my book Theory of Nothing, which is
available as a free download from my website
http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html, or in dead tree format from
Amazon.
There is also a paper Ants are not conscious which takes that argument a
bit further, and more technical,
9 matches
Mail list logo
