On 7/1/2012 7:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 8:36 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/1/2012 5:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Jul 1, 2012, at 6:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 01 Jul 2012, at 19:26, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
There are incompatible from the 1-pov ONLY if you assume there
can be only one Bruno Marchal
1-pov means 1-pov from the 1-pov view.
That's real nice, but the predictions written
On 01 Jul 2012, at 20:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/1/2012 4:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jul 2012, at 09:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/1/2012 12:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Jun 2012, at 22:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/30/2012 12:20 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Jun 2012, at 18:44,
On 7/2/2012 4:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jul 2012, at 20:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/1/2012 4:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Except neither fortran nor Turing machines exist apart from
physical realizations.
Of course they do. Turing machine and fortran program are
mathematical,
On 02 Jul 2012, at 03:36, meekerdb wrote:
That's right. We can discover properties of real things that are
not part of their defining description - unlike say the number 17.
That's weird. We might discover one day that 17 has some property we
have not yet think of. The number 24 has been
On 02 Jul 2012, at 03:36, meekerdb wrote:
I don't discount the possibility that Bruno's 'everything is
arithmetic' might be a good model, I just haven't seen any
predictive power yet.
1) A refutation of a theory metaphysical physicalism in the cognitive
science does not need any
On 02 Jul 2012, at 04:45, Jason Resch wrote:
I agree that solving one problem (ontology) has created a new one
(predicting experiences), but if solutions to old problems didn't
bring new questions, science would have hit a dead end long ago.
But just because we are faced with a new
On 02 Jul 2012, at 10:28, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/2/2012 4:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jul 2012, at 20:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/1/2012 4:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Except neither fortran nor Turing machines exist apart from
physical realizations.
Of course they do. Turing
On 02 Jul 2012, at 11:54, Bruno Marchal wrote (to Stephen):
It is the believe that the principle of excluded middle can be apply
on the arithmetical sentence. In particular the proof needs ony the
belief that phi_i(j) converge or diverge, or that the machine i
applied on j stops or does
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You are, by definition asked to predict which one.
If the person asking the question demands one and only one prediction then
he has made the very silly logical assumption that there can only be one
Bruno Marchal.
Your
On 2 July 2012 15:06, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Not on a third person description of bodies nor on a third person
description of first person experiences, only on the first person
experience.
The only first person experience I know directly is my own
For heaven's sake re-read
On 02 Jul 2012, at 16:06, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
You are, by definition asked to predict which one.
If the person asking the question demands one and only one
prediction then he has made the very silly logical assumption
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote
silly assumptions like there can be only one Bruno Marchal
That is not a silly assumptions. It is a consequence of
computationalism.
So you've proved that if computationalism is true then there can be only
one Bruno Marchal, but
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
After Bruno has been copied each copy must be in precisely the
first-person position you describe.
And one nanosecond after the copying when one receives sensory impulses
that originated in Moscow and the other receives sensory
On 2 July 2012 17:50, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
*And one nanosecond after the copying when one receives sensory impulses
that originated in Moscow and the other receives sensory impulses that
originated in Washington neither would be in precisely the first-person
position they were
On 7/2/2012 1:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is no different than abstracting apples and oranges as fruit so that we can add one
apple to one orange and get two fruit. It doesn't make apples and oranges the same thing.
Sure. But it makes both of them being incarnation of fruit, showing that
On 02 Jul 2012, at 18:41, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote
silly assumptions like there can be only one Bruno Marchal
That is not a silly assumptions. It is a consequence of
computationalism.
So you've proved that if computationalism is
On 7/2/2012 7:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Do you really not see any difference between tables and chairs and people
and numbers,
Chairs and people are also mathematical objects, just really complex ones with a large
information content. This is the necessary conclusion of anyone who
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/2/2012 7:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Do you really not see any difference between tables and chairs and
people and numbers,
Chairs and people are also mathematical objects, just really complex ones
with a large
On 02 Jul 2012, at 19:39, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/2/2012 1:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is no different than abstracting apples and oranges as fruit
so that we can add one apple to one orange and get two fruit. It
doesn't make apples and oranges the same thing.
Sure. But it makes both
On 02.07.2012 20:12 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/2/2012 7:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Do you really not see any difference between tables and chairs and
people and numbers,
Chairs and people are also mathematical objects, just really
complex ones with a large information content. This
On 7/2/2012 11:21 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/2/2012 7:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Do you really not see any difference between tables and chairs and
people and
numbers,
On 7/2/2012 11:50 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 02.07.2012 20:12 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/2/2012 7:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Do you really not see any difference between tables and chairs and
people and numbers,
Chairs and people are also mathematical objects, just really
complex
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 2:01 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/2/2012 11:21 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/2/2012 7:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Do you really not see any difference between tables and chairs and
Stephen,
Right, this is all about wholeness. I suggest that
1. Wholeness can never be 100% independent of context.
2. Since consciousness is materially related in any definition of wholeness, I
reason that...
3. There is not necessarily any possible method of extracting, teleporting,
On 7/2/2012 12:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 2:01 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/2/2012 11:21 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/2/2012 12:45 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 02.07.2012 21:08 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/2/2012 11:50 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 02.07.2012 20:12 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/2/2012 7:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Do you really not see any difference between tables and chairs
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The profound thing is that in Helsinki he does not know which one he will
feel to be, so he is confronted with an indeterminacy
Suppose I send the same identical Email to both you and to Craig at the
same identical time, you look
On 7/2/2012 2:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
To summarize our conversation up to this point:
BM: Do you really not see any difference between tables and chairs and people
and numbers,
JR: Chairs and people are also mathematical objects, just really complex ones with a
large information content.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 5:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/2/2012 2:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
To summarize our conversation up to this point:
BM: Do you really not see any difference between tables and chairs and
people and numbers,
JR: Chairs and people are also
On 7/2/2012 6:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 5:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/2/2012 2:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
To summarize our conversation up to this point:
BM: Do you really not see any difference
31 matches
Mail list logo
