Hi Stephen,
What is the difference between a random sequence of bits and a
meaningful message? The correct decryption scheme.
That's an excellent question. I suspect a scheme might not be
necessary to infer the presence of meaning, but what I'm going to say
is very empirical.
Suppose a
On 3/8/2013 6:17 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Stephen,
What is the difference between a random sequence of bits and a
meaningful message? The correct decryption scheme.
That's an excellent question. I suspect a scheme might not be
necessary to infer the presence of meaning, but what I'm
On 3/8/2013 7:41 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
That may be not enough. suppose that you are starving, and you receive
in your phone a message describing where is the next source of water
but somehow the description is interspersed in the description of the
complete equation of the M Theory
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 11:34:49 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/7/2013 6:40 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 8:58:29 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/7/2013 4:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 7:33:46 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/7/2013
On Friday, March 8, 2013 7:41:23 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
That may be not enough. suppose that you are starving, and you receive in
your phone a message describing where is the next source of water but
somehow the description is interspersed in the description of the complete
2013/3/8 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Friday, March 8, 2013 7:41:23 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
That may be not enough. suppose that you are starving, and you receive in
your phone a message describing where is the next source of water but
somehow the description is
On 07 Mar 2013, at 15:20, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
Isn't it more likely that the drug simply makes your narrative
thoughts less able than usual to trace their sources? So it is like
the Poincare' effect
On 07 Mar 2013, at 16:11, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Friday, March 8, 2013, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/7/2013 8:44 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 12:59:50 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: By
the definition I gave above a stone does not choose to roll down
the hill
On 07 Mar 2013, at 16:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/7/2013 10:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Friday, March 8, 2013, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/7/2013 8:44 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 12:59:50 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: By
the definition I gave above a
On 3/8/2013 5:43 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
That's my test - shifting a person to a totally synthetic brain and back. If we don't
have the technology to do that, then we can't do the test and we can't know if synthetic
brains are the same as natural.
Then why do you pretend to know it?
On 07 Mar 2013, at 17:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/7/2013 10:58 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 10:43:06 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
On 3/7/2013 10:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Friday, March 8, 2013, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/7/2013 8:44 AM,
On 07 Mar 2013, at 17:36, Terren Suydam wrote:
I have no doubt that Craig will somehow see this as a vindication of
his theory and a refutation of mechanism.
All videos with cats are lovely. I agree with you that they can hardly
be used to refute mechanism ...
... even when cats do
On 07 Mar 2013, at 17:37, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 8:19:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Mar 2013, at 18:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I understand where you are coming from in MGA now, Bruno, and again
there is nothing wrong with your reasoning, but in that
On 07 Mar 2013, at 23:21, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/7/2013 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If you have ever worked with Terminal Servers, RDP, Citrix
Metaframe, or the like (and that's what I have been doing
professionally every day for the last 14 years), you will
understand the idea
On 07 Mar 2013, at 23:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/7/2013 2:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/7/2013 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If you have ever worked with Terminal Servers, RDP, Citrix
Metaframe, or the like (and that's what I have been doing
professionally every day for the last 14
On 08 Mar 2013, at 01:57, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What is your empirical evidence that will convince you that my view
is right?
No empirical evidence can convince anyone that a view is right.
Empirical evidence can convince someone that a view is wrong. Only.
Bruno
Craig
On 07 Mar 2013, at 22:50, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 03:53:13PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Mar 2013, at 20:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/4/2013 4:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Mar 2013, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote:
Some randomness can be useful, if only to solve
On 3/8/2013 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, we know that classical determinism is wrong, but it is not
logically inconsistent with consciousness.
I must disagree. It is baked into the topology of classical
mechanics that a system cannot semantically act upon itself.
? (that seems
On 3/8/2013 12:37 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Hi Stephen,
According with my definition the information depends both on the
message and the state of the autonomous entity.
Hi Alberto,
Thank you for your comments!
An autonomous Turing machine (call it robot) can and maybe sould have
On Friday, March 8, 2013 1:04:23 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/8/2013 5:43 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
That's my test - shifting a person to a totally synthetic brain and back.
If we don't have the technology to do that, then we can't do the test and
we can't know if synthetic brains are
On 08 Mar 2013, at 05:37, Terren Suydam wrote:
Ah. That's above my pay grade unfortunately. But I don't think our
immediate failure to solve that problem dooms the idea that a cat's
experience of the world is explainable in terms of mechanism.
Conversely, even if we did solve it, there
On 3/8/2013 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Exactly. This is why computations are exactly describable as strings...
It is less wrong to say that description of computation can be denoted
with string. Computation themselves are not strings. They are sequence
of states related by some universal
On 08 Mar 2013, at 05:53, Terren Suydam wrote:
That's interesting to me too. Actually I'm surprised you are not
more embracing of Bruno's ideas because they give life to the idea
of conscious software. You seem to me to be reluctant to give up
materialism, but philosophically speaking I
On Friday, March 8, 2013 1:50:45 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2013, at 01:57, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What is your empirical evidence that will convince you that my view is
right?
No empirical evidence can convince anyone that a view is right.
Empirical evidence can
Stephen, you know my aversion against random: it is a disorderly sequence
the origination of which is not (yet?) disclosed to us -
usually excluded from our ordinate view of nature since it deprives the
prediction according to the so far derived (physical?) laws.
My second part to your question:
On 3/8/2013 3:05 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Stephen, you know my aversion against random: it is a disorderly
sequence the origination of which is not (yet?) disclosed to us -
usually excluded from our ordinate view of nature since it deprives
the prediction according to the so far derived
On Friday, March 8, 2013 1:35:12 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Mar 2013, at 17:37, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 8:19:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Mar 2013, at 18:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I understand where you are coming from in MGA now, Bruno,
On 3/8/2013 4:33 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 8, 2013 1:35:12 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Mar 2013, at 17:37, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 8:19:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Mar 2013, at 18:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Hi,
Is the following a sound claim?
...scientifically meaningful propositions are questions about the past,
the present, the future, or the eternal laws that:
* might in principle be both false and true
* admit a method, at least in principle, to evaluate their truth values.
--
On 3/8/2013 11:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi,
Is the following a sound claim?
...scientifically meaningful propositions are questions about the
past, the present, the future, or the eternal laws that:
* might in principle be both false and true
* admit a method, at least in
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 , Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
who would vow never to change their views?
The religious faithful.
By simple logic the answer has to be yes if the following conditions are
met. If whenever a traffic jam happens the sun goes down and whenever the
sun goes
On 3/9/2013 1:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 , Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
who would vow never to change their views?
The religious faithful.
Dear John,
Could you consider the possibility that the religiously faithful
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Stephen Hawking can look at someone doing it and eventually figure it
out, and then instruct me to do exactly what he says and unclog the toilet.
The sad, very sad, fact is that without computers Stephen Hawking couldn't
On 3/9/2013 1:12 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Stephen Hawking can look at someone doing it and eventually
figure it out, and then instruct me to do exactly what he says and
unclog the toilet.
34 matches
Mail list logo
