On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The neurons are firing in my brain as I'm thinking, but if you could
go down to the microscopic level you would see that they are firing
due to the various physical factors that make neurons fire, eg. fluxes
of
On Oct 4, 2:11 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
The ion channel only opens when the ligand binds. The ligand only
binds if it is present in the synapse. It is only present in the
synapse when the presynaptic neuron fires. And so on.
It's the 'and so on' where your
2011/10/4 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 4, 2:11 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
The ion channel only opens when the ligand binds. The ligand only
binds if it is present in the synapse. It is only present in the
synapse when the presynaptic neuron fires.
On Oct 4, 8:54 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/4 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 4, 2:11 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
The ion channel only opens when the ligand binds. The ligand only
binds if it is present in the synapse. It is
On 04 Oct 2011, at 02:29, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I agree with Craig, although the way he presents it might seems a bit
uncomputationalist, (if I can say(*)).
Thoughts act on matter all the time. It is a selection
On 04 Oct 2011, at 05:33, Brian Tenneson wrote:
From page 17
It is my contention that the only way out of this dilemma is to
deny the
initial assumption that a classical computer running a particular
program can
generate conscious awareness in the first place.
What about the possibility
On 04 Oct 2011, at 02:27, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Ok, so this is where I would disagree. It only seems that to define
a computation you need to look at the time evolution, because a
snapshot doesn't contain enough information about the dynamics of
the system. But here one considers all of
On 03 Oct 2011, at 19:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/3/2011 9:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Oct 2011, at 00:47, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/2/2011 7:13 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 3:01 AM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
It's a strange, almost paradoxical result
On 03 Oct 2011, at 19:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/3/2011 8:43 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Let me try to be sure that I understand this comment. When you
write: they will all see the same laws are you referring to
those invariant quantities and relations/functions with respect
On 03 Oct 2011, at 20:51, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Sep 2011, at 17:26, benjayk wrote:
COMP is the attempt to solve the mind-body problem with basing
everything on
computations.
This is not correct. Comp is the assumption that the brain functions
without extra magic,
On 03 Oct 2011, at 21:00, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Just a little correction. I wrote (on 30 Sep 2011) :
On 30 Sep 2011, at 17:26, benjayk wrote:
snip
The only thing that COMP does is to propose a complicated thought
construct
which essentially reveals its own emptiness.
On 10/4/2011 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Oct 2011, at 19:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/3/2011 8:43 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Let me try to be sure that I understand this comment. When you
write: they will all see the same laws are you referring to those
invariant quantities
On 10/3/2011 11:11 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The neurons are firing in my brain as I'm thinking, but if you could
go down to the microscopic level you would see that they are firing
due to the various physical
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Oct 2011, at 21:00, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Just a little correction. I wrote (on 30 Sep 2011) :
On 30 Sep 2011, at 17:26, benjayk wrote:
snip
The only thing that COMP does is to propose a complicated thought
construct
which essentially
On 10/4/2011 10:25 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
The conservation laws come from the requirement that we want our laws to be the same
for everyone at every time and place. This is our idea of laws. I'm sure you're
familiar with Noether's theorem and how she showed that conservation of moment
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
But then one 3-thing remains uncomputable, and undefined,
namely the very foundation of computations. We can define
computations in
terms of numbers relations, and we can define number relations in
terms of
+,*,N. But what is N? It is 0 and
On 10/4/2011 1:44 PM, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
But then one 3-thing remains uncomputable, and undefined,
namely the very foundation of computations. We can define
computations in
terms of numbers relations, and we can define number relations in
terms of
+,*,N.
Hmm... Unfortunately there are several terms there I don't understand.
Digital brain. What's a brain? I ask because I'm betting it doesn't
mean a pile of gray and white matter.
Then you mention artificial brain. That's different from digital? Is
digital more nonphysical than artificial?
On
On 10/4/2011 4:20 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/4/2011 10:25 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
The conservation laws come from the requirement that we want our
laws to be the same for everyone at every time and place. This is
our idea of laws. I'm sure you're familiar with Noether's
theorem and how
On Oct 4, 2:59 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This goes by the name causal completeness; the idea that the 3-p observable
state at t
is sufficient to predict the state at t+dt. Craig wants add to this that
there is
additional information which is not 3-p observable and which
On 10/4/2011 5:15 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 4, 2:59 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This goes by the name causal completeness; the idea that the 3-p observable
state at t
is sufficient to predict the state at t+dt. Craig wants add to this that there
is
additional information
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:59 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This goes by the name causal completeness; the idea that the 3-p
observable state at t is sufficient to predict the state at t+dt. Craig
wants add to this that there is additional information which is not 3-p
observable and
On Oct 4, 8:46 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/4/2011 5:15 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 4, 2:59 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This goes by the name causal completeness; the idea that the 3-p
observable state at t
is sufficient to predict the state at t+dt.
On Oct 4, 9:32 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:59 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This goes by the name causal completeness; the idea that the 3-p
observable state at t is sufficient to predict the state at t+dt. Craig
wants add to this
On 10/4/2011 8:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 4, 8:46 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/4/2011 5:15 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 4, 2:59 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This goes by the name causal completeness; the idea that the 3-p observable
state at t
is
On 10/4/2011 6:32 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:59 AM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This goes by the name causal completeness; the idea that the 3-p
observable state at t is sufficient to predict the state at t+dt. Craig
wants add to this that there is
26 matches
Mail list logo
