On 30 Apr 2010, at 22:14, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Maybe... Technological Singularity ?
Something like that, it seems. Turing simulable?
People should recall, from time to time what their acronym are for.
On 4/30/10, Sami Perttu sami.per...@gmail.com wrote:
-TS is the biggest strategic
Yeah, I should untangle these acronyms more often. Apologies to John.
TS = Technological Singularity.
Some recent discoveries makes me think that our digital substitution
level, if it exists, may be far lower than standard neuro-philosophers
may think.
- The discovery of wave-like
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you've got the argument wrong.
I think you're wrong about my getting the argument wrong. :)
Carroll discusses this in his book From Eternity to Here
From Eternity To Here, Pg. 182 (my comments follow the
On 5/1/2010 10:43 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Jesse Mazerlaserma...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you've got the argument wrong.
I think you're wrong about my getting the argument wrong. :)
Carroll discusses this in his book From Eternity to Here
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
This argument is not
definitive mainly because we don't have a definitive theory of
consciousness, but to the extent we assume a physical basis for
consciousness it seems pretty good.
Ha! As long as you assume there
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
But if the universe arose from a quantum fluctuation, it would necessarily
start with very low entropy since it would not be big enough to encode more
than one or two bits at the Planck scale. If one universe can
On 5/1/2010 12:25 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
This argument is not
definitive mainly because we don't have a definitive theory of
consciousness, but to the extent we assume a physical basis for
consciousness it seems
Hi, Quentin, .
Long time no exchange... and thanx.
That is a good suggestion, I just cannot figure out how can a Singularity be
Technological?
I may have too 'big' assumptions about the 'S'-concept, including it's *
closedness* so even no information can slip out (= we don't even know about
its
On 5/1/2010 12:31 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
But if the universe arose from a quantum fluctuation, it would necessarily
start with very low entropy since it would not be big enough to encode more
than one or two bits at
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 5/1/2010 12:25 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
This argument is not
definitive mainly because we don't have a definitive theory of
consciousness,
On 5/1/2010 2:40 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 5/1/2010 12:25 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
This argument is not
definitive mainly because we don't have
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Seems like a good answer to me. Suppose there were infinitely many rolls of
a die (which frequentist statisticians assume all the time). The fact that
the number of 1s would be countably infinite and the number of
On 5/1/2010 3:17 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Seems like a good answer to me. Suppose there were infinitely many rolls of
a die (which frequentist statisticians assume all the time). The fact that
the number of 1s would
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Fine. You solve all problems by postulating that your consciousness is
fundamental, it just IS,
I don't solve all problems. I only solve all metaphysical problems.
But isn't that what physicalists attempt to do by
Mathematically, a singularity is where something is divided by
zero. A matrix with zero determinant is singular - if you attempt to
solve the simultaneous linear equations described by the matrix, you
will end up dividing by zero - a singularity.
In General Relativity, a singularity is where the
On 5/1/2010 4:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Fine. You solve all problems by postulating that your consciousness is
fundamental, it just IS,
I don't solve all problems. I only solve all metaphysical problems.
But
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Sure we can, because part of the meaning of random, the very thing that
lost us the information, includes each square having the same measure for
being one of the numbers. If, for example, we said let all the 1s come
Thanks, Russell, it was very educative. I learned about singularity probably
before you were born, and that was not a 'mathematical' one. By 1956 I
probably even forgot about it. The term - in its classical form - was almost
interchangeable with nirvana. Probably the first model of a black hole
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think you've got the argument wrong.
I think you're wrong about my getting the argument wrong. :)
I suppose it depends what you mean by the
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
But if the universe arose from a quantum fluctuation, it would
necessarily
start with very low entropy since it would not be big enough to
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
And do you believe this sequence will persist in
producing orderly and consistent experiences?
I do believe that. BUT...why do I believe it? Well, ultimately,
there is no reason I believe it. I just do.
Then
On 5/1/2010 6:15 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
And do you believe this sequence will persist in
producing orderly and consistent experiences?
I do believe that. BUT...why do I believe it? Well,
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think you've got the argument wrong.
I think you're wrong about my
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com
24 matches
Mail list logo
