Yes, excellent review - but I don't think they have yet broached the central
mechanist concept of immateriality. I haven't read the book but I don't think
Hawking has ever referred explicitly to the contradiction inherent in the
mind-body problem. It may be that Bruno is ahead of the lot of
On 14.08.2011 02:00 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
How could the rest of your brain possibly respond differently if
it receives exactly the same stimulation? Perhaps you mean that
it would be able to tell that
On 13 Aug 2011, at 16:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.08.2011 14:08 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
If your visual cortex is replaced by an electronic device that
produces the appropriate outputs at its borders,
On 14/08/2011, at 1:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
In the recent posts I do not propose any theory of consciousness, I am
just interested in whether consciousness would be preserved if I had
my brain replaced with artificial components. If the answer is yes
that still does
Bruno,
It well may be that you are right. The problem from my side is that my
knowledge of mathematics is not enough to understand you. For example
What do you mean? Some robot, running some program can be conscious,
like us (assuming mechanism).
I do not know what conscious means in this
On Aug 14, 8:55 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The theory exists. Computer science and mathematical logic can be used
to formulate precisely the hard problem. And to solve it including a
'meta-solution' of the hard part of it.
How does logic become feeling? I can see something
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3keLeMwfHY
Does the idea of this machine solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness,
or are qualia something more than ideas?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
Brent, thanks for this. If I've understood it at all, the idea is
that the sum over histories results in our witnessing the most
probable macroscopic outcome as our present observation. I
believe there is some controversy in interpreting how probability
should be understood in the context of a
Craig,
Thanks for the video, it is truly impressive.
Jason
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3keLeMwfHY
Does the idea of this machine solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness,
or are qualia something more than ideas?
On 13 Aug 2011, at 23:07, benjayk wrote:
We are going in circles, because I am just totally unable to explain
what I
mean. I guess because words can't convey what I want to convey.
Probably I
am trying to argue something that is incommunicable, like you kindly
reminded me. On many levels
On 13 Aug 2011, at 21:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 13, 1:39 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Aug 2011, at 14:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The further our imaginary reality is from our own
PRIF, the less likely that it could reflect the concrete experiences
that would occur
On 14 Aug 2011, at 15:14, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Bruno,
It well may be that you are right. The problem from my side is that
my knowledge of mathematics is not enough to understand you.
Mathematics is not well taught, and the case is worst for logic. It is
a pity.
For example
What
On 14 Aug 2011, at 16:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 14, 8:55 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The theory exists. Computer science and mathematical logic can be
used
to formulate precisely the hard problem. And to solve it including a
'meta-solution' of the hard part of it.
On 14 Aug 2011, at 16:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3keLeMwfHY
Does the idea of this machine solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness,
or are qualia something more than ideas?
Quite cute little physical implementation of a Turing machine.
Read Sane04, it explains
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Aug 2011, at 23:07, benjayk wrote:
We are going in circles, because I am just totally unable to explain
what I
mean. I guess because words can't convey what I want to convey.
Probably I
am trying to argue something that is incommunicable, like you
On 13 Aug 2011, at 22:16, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
By not teaching math to kids, we are dumbing down the next
generation. Of course, most people do not have a talent for math,
but then most people do not have a talent for writing either. A few
hundered years ago, only a small fraction of
Dear Saibal Mitra, thanks for the reply -
as I remember for more than the past 15 years, your lines represent (still)
pure rational thinking.
However... I wouyld start for re-thinking *'education'* from the US (and
spreading) content: to *TEACH* stuff. A school has more duty than that. It
should
Bruno,
Let me put it this way. I guess that a Lobian machine could be
implemented, or it has been already implemented. So let us then take
some Lobian machine and then you demonstrate practically that such a
machine is conscious. Then it would much easier to understand what you mean.
On 8/14/2011 6:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 14/08/2011, at 1:14 PM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
In the recent posts I do not propose any theory of consciousness, I am
just interested in whether consciousness would be preserved if I had
my brain replaced with artificial
On Aug 14, 12:05 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 13 Aug 2011, at 21:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 13, 1:39 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Aug 2011, at 14:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The further our imaginary reality is from our own
PRIF, the less likely
On Aug 14, 1:30 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Aug 2011, at 16:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
How does logic become feeling?
Logic cannot. You need logic + a universal machine. For example logic
+ addition and multiplication of integers.
How is the addition and
On Aug 14, 11:50 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Craig,
Thanks for the video, it is truly impressive.
Jason
Oh glad you liked it. I agree, what a beautifully engineered project.
Craig
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
Great video ... a picture of simplicity
Q. 'What is it like to be a Turing Machine? = Hard Problem.
A. It's like being the pile of gear in the video, NO MATTER WHAT IS ON
THE TAPE.
Colin
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
On Aug 14, 7:29 pm, Colin Geoffrey Hales cgha...@unimelb.edu.au
wrote:
Great video ... a picture of simplicity
Q. 'What is it like to be a Turing Machine? = Hard Problem.
A. It's like being the pile of gear in the video, NO MATTER WHAT IS ON
THE TAPE.
Why doesn't it matter what's on the
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Monday, 15 August 2011 10:07 AM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: Turing Machines
On Aug 14, 7:29 pm, Colin Geoffrey Hales cgha...@unimelb.edu.au
wrote:
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales
cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote:
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Monday, 15 August 2011 10:07 AM
To: Everything List
Subject:
Colin and Craig,
Imagine that God has such a machine on his desk, which he uses to
compute the updated positions of each particle in some universe over
each unit of Planck time. Would you agree it is possible for the
following to occur in the simulation:
1. Stars to coalesce due to gravity and
On 8/14/2011 7:53 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Brent, thanks for this. If I've understood it at all, the idea is
that the sum over histories results in our witnessing the most
probable macroscopic outcome as our present observation. I
believe there is some controversy in interpreting how probability
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Colin Geoffrey Hales
cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote:
Colin and Craig,
Imagine that God has such a machine on his desk, which he uses to compute
the updated positions of each particle in some universe over each unit of
Planck time. Would you agree it is
29 matches
Mail list logo
