On 9/26/2011 10:35 PM, nihil0 wrote:
It's a little late for this post since I've already posted 2 or 3
things, but I figured I might as well introduce myself.
I'm majoring at philosophy at the University of Michigan, however I'm
studying abroad for a trimester at Oxford. I turn 21 on Oct. 4.
Jon,
Welcome to the list.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:35 AM, nihil0 jonathan.wol...@gmail.com wrote:
It's a little late for this post since I've already posted 2 or 3
things, but I figured I might as well introduce myself.
Its never too late ;-)
I'm majoring at philosophy at the
On 27 Sep 2011, at 02:01, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 26 Sep 2011, at 04:42, Pierz wrote:
- it's not well explained in the paper
yet contains the all the really sweeping and startling assertions.
When I presented UDA at
On 26 Sep 2011, at 21:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/26/2011 9:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Suppose that you are currently in state S (which exist by the comp
assumption).
But what does you refer to?
Your first person view. Or the owner of your first person view,
restricted to that view,
Hi Jon, welcome,
On 27 Sep 2011, at 07:35, nihil0 wrote:
It's a little late for this post since I've already posted 2 or 3
things, but I figured I might as well introduce myself.
I'm majoring at philosophy at the University of Michigan, however I'm
studying abroad for a trimester at Oxford. I
On 9/26/2011 7:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/26/2011 11:52 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/26/2011 7:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/26/2011 11:52 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Stephen P.
On 9/27/2011 8:28 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/26/2011 7:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, so you agree that the *observable* behaviour of neurons can be
adequately explained in terms of a chain of physical events. The
neurons won't do anything that is apparently magical, right?
Are not all of our
On 27 Sep 2011, at 13:49, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/26/2011 7:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
snip
For well-defined propositions regarding the numbers I think the
values are confined to true or false.
Jason
--
[SPK]
Not in general, unless one is only going to allow only Boolean
On 9/27/2011 4:49 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Not in general, unless one is only going to allow only Boolean logics to exist.
There have been proven to exist logics that have truth values that range over any set of
numbers, not just {0,1}. Recall the requirement for a mathematical
On 9/27/2011 5:28 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/26/2011 7:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
Yes, thanks.
It's interesting that he goes from showing how neurons plausibly have
micro-agency, to then insisting in part 7 that we must reduce
consciousness to-unconsciousness.
To me, all it takes is to realize that it's not only what the neurons
are doing physically that matters, but what the
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Not in general, unless one is only going to allow only Boolean logics
to exist. There have been proven to exist logics that have truth values that
range over any set of numbers, not just {0,1}. Recall the requirement
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/27/2011 8:28 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/26/2011 7:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Stephen P.
On 9/27/2011 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Sep 2011, at 21:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/26/2011 9:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Suppose that you are currently in state S (which exist by the comp assumption).
But what does you refer to?
Your first person view. Or the owner of your first
On 9/27/2011 1:40 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/27/2011 4:49 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Not in general, unless one is only going to allow only Boolean
logics to exist. There have been proven to exist logics that have
truth values that range over any set of numbers, not just {0,1}.
On Sep 27, 9:20 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, so you agree that the *observable* behaviour of neurons can be
adequately explained in terms of a chain of physical events. The
neurons won't do
On Sep 26, 2011, at 6:31 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:45 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
An interesting talk relevant to what constitutes an observer
moment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VQ1KI_Jh1QNR=1
Even if the experience
On Sep 25, 2011, at 4:10 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2011 12:35 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:09 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
A theory that can explain anything, fails to explain at all.
A few people on this list have repeated this
On Sep 25, 2011, at 11:58 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Jason:
two 'naive' replies to your (excellent in it's riet) post: - I
interject in bold Italics
John M
Thank you.
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:09
On Sep 27, 2:46 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think Daniel Dennett's book Elbow Room is an excellent defense of
compatibilist free
will and why it is the only kind worth having.
Great suggestion. The wikipedia page was fairly informative, but I'll
probably buy the book anyway.
On 9/27/2011 3:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 26, 2011, at 6:31 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:45 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
An interesting talk relevant to what constitutes an observer moment.
On 9/27/2011 4:18 PM, nihil0 wrote:
On Sep 27, 2:46 am, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think Daniel Dennett's book Elbow Room is an excellent defense of
compatibilist free
will and why it is the only kind worth having.
Great suggestion. The wikipedia page was fairly informative, but
My opinion is that quantum mechanics is essential to define an OM,
despite it being in the classical domain. The computational state of an
AI is not the precise physical state of the system that generates the
AI, it is some coarse grained picture of it. So, if you have a
classical computer,
On 9/27/2011 4:18 PM, nihil0 wrote:
1) There is an infinite number of Hubble
volumes in our universe, which are all casually disconnected (as the
theory of inflation implies). 2) There is a limit on how much matter
and energy can exist within a region of space of a given size, such as
a
OK, well I think this and the other responses (notably Jason's) have
brought me a lot closer to grasping the essence of this argument. I
can see that the set of integers is also the set of all possible
information states, and that the difference between that and the UD is
the element of sequential
On 9/27/2011 8:07 PM, nihil0 wrote:
On 9/27/2011 4:18 PM, nihil0 wrote:
1) There is an infinite number of Hubble
volumes in our universe, which are all casually disconnected (as the
theory of inflation implies). 2) There is a limit on how much matter
and energy can exist within a region of
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/27/2011 8:07 PM, nihil0 wrote:
On 9/27/2011 4:18 PM, nihil0 wrote:
1) There is an infinite number of Hubble
volumes in our universe, which are all casually disconnected (as the
theory of inflation implies). 2)
On 9/27/2011 9:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/27/2011 8:07 PM, nihil0 wrote:
On 9/27/2011 4:18 PM, nihil0 wrote:
1) There is an infinite number of Hubble
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, well I think this and the other responses (notably Jason's) have
brought me a lot closer to grasping the essence of this argument. I
can see that the set of integers is also the set of all possible
information states, and
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/27/2011 9:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I don't think that. I just noted it's logically possible, contrary to
assertions that our universe must be duplicated infinitely many times.
If our universe is not
32 matches
Mail list logo
