On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:56:35PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Aug 2012, at 00:32, Russell Standish wrote:
OK. But the question is: would an agent lost free-will in case no
random oracle is available?
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:15:59PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at 10:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:01:10PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Aug 2012, at 12:30,
OK, thanks. I do appreciate him, but I am not versed in semiotics
vocabulary. In fact I am collaborating with him, and have recently
published some collective work on biomathematics with him and others.
It is too early to really see the connection with comp. Work in
progress.
Bruno
On
On 16 Aug 2012, at 21:32, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
I have to say it again, it doesn't mean that a particular one cannot
solve the halting problem for a particular algorithm.
And unless you prove that that particular
On 16 Aug 2012, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/16/2012 12:32 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
I have to say it again, it doesn't mean that a particular one
cannot solve the halting problem for a particular algorithm.
And
On 17 Aug 2012, at 01:43, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 05:06:31PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Aug 2012, at 09:12, Russell Standish wrote:
Why would this be any different with random number generators? A
coin
flips, and I do something based on the outcome. It is
On 16 Aug 2012, at 18:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/16/2012 7:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
One must assume a mereology (whole-part relational scheme) in any
ontological theory or else there is no way to explain or
communicate it or about it.
That is exactly what I told you. Any
On 16 Aug 2012, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/16/2012 12:32 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
I have to say it again, it doesn't mean that a particular one
cannot solve the halting problem for a particular algorithm.
And
- Have received the following content -
Sender: Roger
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-17, 10:03:03
Subject: Re: Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model
Hi Craig Weinberg
Bruno Marchal's Comment below on the possibility of digitally dealing with
subjective
Hi Jason Resch
Right.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Jason Resch
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-14, 19:37:15
Subject: Re:
Hi Jason Resch
Yes, bad things can happen in this contingent world,
just because it's contingent. And contingency breeds contingency.
That's a good reason for the establishment beforehand of Perfect Harmony.
Contingency and Perfect harmony must go together.
But if it's any reason for you not
Hi Craig,
On 15 Aug 2012, at 11:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
in case the special characters don't come out...
I was thinking about your primitive of arithmetic truth (numbers, 0,
+, and *, right?) and then your concept of ‘the dreams of
numbers’, interviewing Lobian Machines, etc and came up
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:04 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But there's also a different meaning of undecidable: a statement that can
be added as an axiom or it's negation can be added as an axiom
Axioms are important, you've got to be very careful with them! If you go
around adding
On 16 Aug 2012, at 18:45, Roger wrote:
Wow ! If true this would be the Holy Grail I've sought,
Well, you make me hoping it is true, then.
and the irony is that I could not understand what to do with it.
It is the major weakness. I just open a little bit a door in a new
direction (or
Hi Jason Resch
Wouldn't Godel incompleteness be the fatal flaw in at least some Turing
machines ?
Meaning, they cannot have a full set of instructions or data.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
Hi Jason Resch
One -- especially a computer -- cannot experience abstractions.
One (ie only living entities) can only experience the concrete.
ab穝tract
adjective
1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual
instances: an abstract idea.
Roger ,
Hi Jason Resch
Ultimately you might be able to do something useful emulating the mind with a
computer,
apparently Bruno has, but to me it would be a miracle or at least very tricky.
But what do I k now ? Tthey said that human flight was impossible, so keep at
it.
But consider these
On Aug 17, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Jason Resch
Wouldn't Godel incompleteness be the fatal flaw in at least some
Turing machines ?
A flaw in what sense?
Meaning, they cannot have a full set of instructions or data.
It doesn't matter how many
Thanks Roger,
Your work on this looks very interesting. I think I get the gist of it but
I will have to take a closer look.
I wonder how would fortune telling not include weather reports, actuarial
tables, financial forecasts, etc? Historically there doesn't seem to be any
meaningful
Hi William R. Buckley
Yes. Peirce's categories could also be used as a framework for a theory of
subjectivity/objectivity.
I is subjective (observing)
II is subjective to objective (recognizing)
II is objective (expressing)
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If
On Friday, August 17, 2012 10:48:04 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Craig,
On 15 Aug 2012, at 11:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
in case the special characters don't come out...
I was thinking about your primitive of arithmetic truth (numbers, 0,
+, and *, right?) and then your
Hi meekerdb
A computer can not experience the wonder produced by the night sky,
for example.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Hi William R. Buckley
But experience is concrete, but a computer can only deal in abstractions,
which at best are descriptions of experience.
It like the difference between having sex and just talking about it.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd
Hi meekerdb
why not what ?
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-14, 14:25:31
Subject: Re: A rat
It is explained by Donald Symons in the evolutioon of human sexuality :
if everithing is cultural. Any mutant line of humans with some inmunity to
social imprinted things will refine their innate self , generation after
generation, to manipulate others for its own benefit by subverting the
social
Hi meekerdb
In my view (perhaps not yours) things are as they are and move as they
do for a reason, called sufficient reason.
Science is the pursuit of sufficient reasons. Determinism is the belief that
sufficient reasons exist.
And God (or some other creator) is the sufficient reason for
Hi Bruno,
By ontologically primitive entity do you mean substance ?
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Hi Stephen P. King
That free will is consistent with a deterministic universe is the compatibilist
point of view.
There is also the opposite, the non-compatibilist p.o.v. They're both logical,
given
their different assumptions or posings of the issue.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/17/2012
Hi Stephen P. King
The possible only exists in this world given enough time.
That is one practical argument against the creation of life in a deterministic
world.
Some say 19 billion years of random constructions isn't enough.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If
Hi meekerdb
In my view, this is the Chicken vs Egg paradox, my solution
to it being that life has been present even before the Big Bang
in the fiorm of (cosmic) intelligence.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
On 8/17/2012 12:51 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
I don't follow this. Can you explain how?
If super intelligent aliens secretly came to earth and predicted your actions, how has
that diminished the freedom you had before their arrival?
Someone asked why this concept is important. It isn't
Hi John Clark
You're wrong.
1) Very few if any high school students would even believe -- less claim --
that all that we know must come through the senses.
I don't think it's taught in science class.
2) Your comment about 0s and 1s and ascii characters has nothing to do with
living
Hi guys,
Regarding Descartes.
There has always been, and still is, a turf war between science and religion,
each wanting to claim superiority over the other. And there's a bit of fear
because most people believe that there's only one truth or that truth comes in
only one form,
either in
Hi John Clark
Tell me then, John, what is the difference between red and redness ?
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: John Clark
Receiver:
On 8/17/2012 8:30 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi Jason Resch
One -- especially a computer -- cannot experience abstractions.
One (ie only living entities) can only experience the concrete.
Except physics tells us that concrete is mostly empty space and a ray in an enormous
Hilbert space.
Brent
Riddle:
On 8/17/2012 10:18 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi meekerdb
A computer can not experience the wonder produced by the night sky,
for example.
Many assertions...no proofs.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send
From Leibniz
The world we live in has a curious connection between time and truth
in that the only truths we can know in this world of time and space
are facts, truths that need not be always true nor true everywhere.
Contingent truths.
To me, the halting issue is a characteristic of these
On 8/17/2012 10:30 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi meekerdb
In my view (perhaps not yours) things are as they are and move as they
do for a reason, called sufficient reason.
Science is the pursuit of sufficient reasons.
I doubt that. I think science is about finding good explanations, and good means
Sorry, Roger:
The universe is purely subjective.
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 11:11 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: 0s and 1s
Hi John Clark
You're wrong.
1) Very
On 8/17/2012 10:52 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi meekerdb
In my view, this is the Chicken vs Egg paradox, my solution
to it being that life has been present even before the Big Bang
in the fiorm of (cosmic) intelligence.
And what testable consequences are implied by that 'solution'?
Brent
--
You
The universe is purely subjective.
Is that statement purely subjective?
Maybe you meant: other than this statement, the universe is purely
subjective.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email
On 8/17/2012 10:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Craig,
On 15 Aug 2012, at 11:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
in case the special characters don't come out...
I was thinking about your primitive of arithmetic truth (numbers, 0,
+, and *, right?) and then your concept of ‘the dreams of numbers’,
On 8/17/2012 11:32 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi guys,
Regarding Descartes.
There has always been, and still is, a turf war between science and religion,
each wanting to claim superiority over the other. And there's a bit of fear
because most people believe that there's only one truth or that truth
On 8/17/2012 2:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Aug 2012, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/16/2012 12:32 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
I have to say it again, it doesn't mean that a particular
On 8/17/2012 1:49 PM, Roger wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
The possible only exists in this world given enough time.
HI Roger,
I would say that the possible is only expressed and/or actualize in
the physical worlds, but it itself must be eternally prior to all
expressions.
That is one
Hear Hear!
On 8/17/2012 2:32 PM, Roger wrote:
Hi guys,
Regarding Descartes.
There has always been, and still is, a turf war between science and
religion,
each wanting to claim superiority over the other. And there's a bit of
fear
because most people believe that there's only one truth or
Hi Bruno Marchal
More simply, materialism contains no concept of a singular focussed agent, the
self.
So it cannot explain very much, for the self perceives, feels, and does. It is
me,
although in the living flesh, something radically different.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/17/2012
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/17/2012 12:51 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
I don't follow this. Can you explain how?
If super intelligent aliens secretly came to earth and predicted your
actions, how has that diminished the freedom you had before
On 8/17/2012 12:35 PM, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
More simply, materialism contains no concept of a singular focussed agent, the
self.
So it cannot explain very much,
On the contrary, it has the hope of explaining the self - whereas assuming the self does
not.
Brent
for the self
Hi Bruno Marchal
This also needs looking into by mne. Thanks.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time:
Bruno,
I admire your perseverence and also of others keeping pace of Roger's
incredible flood of posts. I confess to have fallen out if not by other
reasons: lack of time to read (not to mention: comprehend) all that
'wisdom' he includes into this list over the past week or so.
One remark - and I
Hi Bruno Marchal
1) For wine-tasting -- What one must have is knowing that one knows that the
wine tastes good.
Such as one can prove that 1+1 =2 but one still has to accept that as true.
2) mo穘ad (mnd)
n.
1. Philosophy An indivisible, impenetrable unit of substance viewed as the
basic
Hi Bruno Marchal
Hmm... I might explain later why machines are necessarily confronted to the
same problem, and even why some machine will lie to themselves to hide that
problem, for example by becoming adult and wanting to reassure the children or
something.
Arithmetical truth can be seen
Hi Bruno Marchal
What if I put on a fake moustache ? Or glasses ?
Would the computer still know it's me ?
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I donb't seem to be able to convince Stanley Salthe of this, but
I think that life must have two irreplaceable qualities:
1) Autonomous intelligence, that intelligence of nature found in our
fine-tuned world.
2) What amounts to the same thing, the freedom to pick and choose
Hi Alberto G. Corona
Sorery, again I oversimplified things. I don't know about a blank slate,
but we are products bioth of heredity and society.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving
Hi Craig Weinberg
You are right in a sense. Weather prediction is a form of fortune-telling.
But the reason traditional fortune-telling is frowned on by the Bible is that
it invokes powers outside of God or over God (Thou shalt have no other
God before me).
I don't consider weather
Hi William R. Buckley
To an idealist, the real universe is subjective,
it is made up of forms of mind. But to
a realist, sticks and stones can break
your bones --- but thinking to do so usually
doesn't work.
In the morning I can be an idealist, in the afternoon
go out and enjoy nature as a
Hi John Mikes
I think Heidegger simply made up a new word for his purposes, where since
da=there,
and sein = being, then dasein is in Heideggers glossary being there.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/17/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could
Hi meekerdb
I can't think of any tests to prove that life existed (in principle) before
the big bang, only that what or who made the universe in the BB
had to know beforehand (or by chance or guess) what is needed for life to
survive,
since the biology seems to say that life is very improbable
In all your statements, you are expressing subjectivity.
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:55 PM
To: everything-list
Subject: Mornings and afternoons
Hi William R. Buckley
To an
Monads as computing elements, the supreme monad
as the central processing computer chip.
I think that Leibniz's monads are in some ways similar to computer calculations,
for they exist in logical, rather than physical space, and all are capable of
communications to various extents. If I might
Dear Roger,
How would you explain the mans by which monads communicate given
that they do not exchanges substances as they have no windows?
On 8/17/2012 9:40 PM, Roger wrote:
*Monads as computing elements, the supreme monad*
*as the central processing computer chip.*
I think that
63 matches
Mail list logo
