On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Interesting. How then do we explain the fact that humans suffer all
kinds of computational errors such as schizophrenia, dismorphia, etc. We
intentionally lie... The list of computationally erroneous behavior of
the brain is almost endless. How
Another comment on the paper: arXiv:1202.3395v1 [physics.hist-ph}
Ronald
On Feb 15, 10:27 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
can a virtual typhoon makes you wet?
I don't know, it depends on whether you are
On 2/16/2012 6:57 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Interesting. How then do we explain the fact that humans suffer all
kinds of computational errors such as schizophrenia, dismorphia, etc. We
intentionally lie... The list of computationally erroneous behavior of
On 2/16/2012 15:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:57 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Interesting. How then do we explain the fact that humans suffer all
kinds of computational errors such as schizophrenia, dismorphia, etc. We
intentionally lie... The
On 14 Feb 2012, at 23:33, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 14, 3:41 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2012, at 20:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 14, 7:56 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Feb 2012, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
All computers are
On 2/16/2012 11:54 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 15:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:57 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Interesting. How then do we explain the fact that humans suffer all
kinds of computational errors such as schizophrenia, dismorphia,
On 2/16/2012 17:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:54 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 15:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:57 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Interesting. How then do we explain the fact that humans suffer all
kinds of computational
On 2/16/2012 1:16 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 17:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:54 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 15:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:57 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Interesting. How then do we explain the fact that humans
On 2/16/2012 9:58 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi ACW,
There is a problem with this way of thinking in that it assumes that all of the
properties of objects are inherent in the objects themselves and have no relation or
dependence on anything else. This is is wrong. We know from our study
2012/2/16 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 2/16/2012 1:16 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 17:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:54 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 15:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:57 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
On 2/16/2012 10:16 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 17:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:54 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 15:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:57 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Interesting. How then do we explain the fact that
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility that the brain can
be emulated by a Universal Turing Machine. It would be helpful if we first established
that a Turing Machine is capable of what we are assuming it do be able
On 2/16/2012 11:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility that
the brain
can be emulated by a Universal Turing Machine. It would be helpful if we
first
established that a Turing Machine is capable of what we are assuming it
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Obviously Watson or Siri give you access to intelligence, but so does a
book.
A book can contain information that can help you answer questions but can
not do so directly, but Watson and Siri can; and all three could
2012/2/16 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 2/16/2012 11:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility
that the brain can be emulated by a Universal Turing Machine. It would be
helpful if we first established that a Turing Machine is
On 2/16/2012 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/2/16 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 2/16/2012 11:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility
that the
brain can be emulated by a
On 2/16/2012 19:09, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 1:16 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 17:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:54 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 15:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:57 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Interesting.
On 2/16/2012 19:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 10:16 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 17:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:54 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 15:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:57 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Interesting. How
On 2/16/2012 2:13 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 9:58 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi ACW,
There is a problem with this way of thinking in that it assumes
that all of the properties of objects are inherent in the objects
themselves and have no relation or dependence on anything else.
On 2/16/2012 2:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
[SPK] All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the
possibility that the brain can be emulated by a Universal Turing
Machine. It would be helpful if we first established that a Turing
Machine is capable of what we are
On Feb 16, 12:10 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Yes. But it is science only as far as we present the theory in clear
hypothetical way.
The rest is pseudo-religion or insanity.
Or it could expand the scope of science.
There was progress before
science, so it is not true that
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility
that the brain can be emulated by a Universal Turing Machine. It
would be helpful if we first established that a Turing Machine is
On 2/16/2012 2:34 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the
possibility that the brain can be emulated by a Universal Turing
Machine. It would be helpful if we first established that a
Turing
2012/2/16 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 2/16/2012 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/2/16 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 2/16/2012 11:15 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility
that the brain can be emulated by a
Are you talking about tautology?
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
[SPK] All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the
possibility that the brain can be emulated by a Universal Turing
On 2/16/2012 20:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility
that the brain can be emulated by a Universal Turing Machine. It
would be helpful if we first
On 2/16/2012 1:00 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 20:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility
that the brain can be emulated by a Universal Turing Machine. It
On 2/16/2012 22:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 1:00 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 20:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility
that the brain can be
On 2/16/2012 3:06 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 19:09, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 1:16 PM, acw wrote:
The assumption in COMP is that a subst. level exists, it's the main
assumption! What does that practically mean? That you can eventually
implement the brain (or a partial version of
On 2/16/2012 3:02 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 22:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 1:00 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 20:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the
On 2/16/2012 12:36 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:13 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 9:58 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi ACW,
There is a problem with this way of thinking in that it assumes that all of the
properties of objects are inherent in the objects themselves and have
On 2/16/2012 12:40 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility that the brain
can be emulated by a Universal Turing Machine. It would be helpful if we
On 2/16/2012 23:08, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 3:06 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 19:09, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 1:16 PM, acw wrote:
The assumption in COMP is that a subst. level exists, it's the main
assumption! What does that practically mean? That you can eventually
On 2/16/2012 3:53 PM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Are you talking about tautology?
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
[SPK] All of this substitution stuff is
On 2/16/2012 4:00 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 20:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility
that the brain can be emulated by a Universal Turing Machine. It
On 2/16/2012 4:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 4:00 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 20:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility
that the brain can
On 2/16/2012 6:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 12:36 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:13 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 9:58 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi ACW,
There is a problem with this way of thinking in that it assumes
that all of the properties of objects are
On 2/16/2012 5:45 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 12:36 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:13 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 9:58 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi ACW,
There is a problem with this way of thinking in that it assumes
On 2/16/2012 7:09 PM, acw wrote:
Do you understand at all the stuff about material and idea monism that I
have mentioned previously? We are exploring the implications of a very
sophisticate form of Ideal Monism that I am very much interested in, as
it has, among other wonderful things, an
On 2/16/2012 7:58 PM, meekerdb wrote:
But QM is consistent with some things (almost all big things) being
almost exactly classical. There is no reason to think our brains
depend on non-classical processes to perform computations (metabolism
- yes, computation - no). Certainly it would be a
On 2/16/2012 8:58 PM, meekerdb wrote:
So Kraus' argument does itself show at least one aspect of how
classical teleportation is problematic. I rest my case.
But his teleportation, which is based on transmitting the position of
every atom in a human body is far more than required for Bruno's
On 2/16/2012 7:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 7:09 PM, acw wrote:
Do you understand at all the stuff about material and idea monism that I
have mentioned previously? We are exploring the implications of a very
sophisticate form of Ideal Monism that I am very much interested in, as
On 2/17/2012 12:00 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 7:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 7:09 PM, acw wrote:
Do you understand at all the stuff about material and idea monism
that I
have mentioned previously? We are exploring the implications of a very
sophisticate form of Ideal
On 2/16/2012 7:55 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 7:58 PM, meekerdb wrote:
But QM is consistent with some things (almost all big things) being almost exactly
classical. There is no reason to think our brains depend on non-classical processes to
perform computations (metabolism - yes,
On 2/16/2012 9:53 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
You do realize that this gives a definition of existence that is very different
from that that almost all philosophers use. That's OK, Bruno is not a philosopher
although he does pretend to be one very well. :-)
I don't think it's different.
On 2/17/2012 1:53 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 8:20 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 8:58 PM, meekerdb wrote:
So Kraus' argument does itself show at least one aspect of how
classical teleportation is problematic. I rest my case.
But his teleportation, which is based on
On 2/17/2012 1:59 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 9:53 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
You do realize that this gives a definition of existence that
is very different from that that almost all philosophers use. That's
OK, Bruno is not a philosopher although he does pretend to be one
very
47 matches
Mail list logo
