On 10 June 2014 16:51, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
You're making an assumption that this measure is proportional to the
cardinality of those branches. I'm making no such assumption. That's all.
OK, I can imagine that Alice and Bob see branch A with probability 90%,
but how
On 10 June 2014 17:13, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Good. Maybe it was Liz that was assuming branch counting.
Probably. But can you explain it so I can understand? (Or even so 90% of me
can?)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On 10 June 2014 16:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Yeah that's pretty close, although I'd say consciousness just occurs at a
different level of description and is equally real at that level. The
second law of thermodynamics is real at the level of thermodynamics, even
though it can
On 10 June 2014 16:33, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
The only logical explanation that comes to mind is that the abhorrence of
this practice was, is and forever shall be part of our genetic program as
designed by our creator. Of course the evolutionists among us would beg to
Having just re-re-read my good friend Wikipaedia's article on this, I'm
still not sure exactly what Turing is proposing. It looks like what you
said - that both a man and a computer tries to fool the judge that they're
a woman! Which is bizarre, but so are cyanide coated apples if one can
believe
Liz, I had forwarded that message within inverted commas as another person's
opinion, as it had been asked for. Therefore, I will neither argue for or
against any of below.
Samiya
On 10-Jun-2014, at 2:02 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 June 2014 16:33, Samiya Illias
OK, I assumed they were your comments. If you are in a position to send my
comments to the originator, I'd be glad if you would, and see what response
they get.
On 10 June 2014 21:43, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz, I had forwarded that message within inverted commas as
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 08 Jun 2014, at 12:30, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 6:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 June 2014 15:43, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
I do know
On 10 June 2014 04:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
They're along for the ride like temperature is alftr on the kinetic
energy of molecules. Before stat mech, heat was regarded as an immaterial
substance. It was explained by the motion of molecules; something that is
3p observable
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 2:19 PM, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
The tronnies travel in circles at speeds of (π/2)c
Hmm, a speed of (π/2)c, but I don't understand what the reference point
is, tronnies are moving at a speed of 1.57079682679c with respect to what?
Perhaps if you
On 09 Jun 2014, at 08:24, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2014 4:03 PM, LizR wrote:
David Nyman gave a much more rigorous definition of primitive
materialism in another thread (he calls it primordial).
ISTM that what is supposed to be primordial about a specific set
of entities and their relations
What? You don't believe demonic possession? Yea, vearily. What happens if the
organization, Sons of the Desert (laurel and hardy) detonates a 12 kiloton
yield weapon in downtown Auckland. Are you going to recommend anti-psychotics
for the perps? I hope you are correct about psychopathology.
I don't think so, but thanks. The question was the idea that zombies exist in
parallel universes are just zombies till our connectome arrives, to update the
zombie, which the actualizes into ourselves in the universe in which we
survived? The second question is does the entire universe, out to
On 09 Jun 2014, at 19:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/9/2014 1:35 AM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2014 18:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2014 4:03 PM, LizR wrote:
David Nyman gave a much more rigorous definition of primitive
materialism in another thread (he calls it primordial).
ISTM
On 09 Jun 2014, at 19:13, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Ok good point
Justice and revenge are human inventions
Oh... That looks like a human belief.
I am afraid that the justice problem haunts many Löbian machines and
Löbian gods (Non Turing effective set of beliefs, or
On 09 Jun 2014, at 19:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/9/2014 3:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
QM is the only theory (or scheme of theories) which has not been
refuted for more than a century. All others theories in physics
have been shown wrong in less than few years, when they are not
suspected
On 09 Jun 2014, at 23:46, LizR wrote:
On 10 June 2014 05:07, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/9/2014 1:35 AM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2014 18:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2014 4:03 PM, LizR wrote:
David Nyman gave a much more rigorous definition of primitive
On 10 Jun 2014, at 02:17, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I believe that free will arises from reasoning.
When confronted with two or more options
humans use reasoning based usually on past experience
to choose a single option from the 2 or more options.
Hmm... It applies through the limit of
On 10 Jun 2014, at 02:55, LizR wrote:
On 10 June 2014 10:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/9/2014 2:46 PM, LizR wrote:
I guess I could venture that it's the ontology of any TOE in which
interactions are all 3p.
OK, thanks. So I would guess that it's equivalent to eliminativism,
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that free will arises from reasoning. When confronted with two
or more options humans use reasoning based usually on past experience
to choose a single option from the 2 or more options.
If free will is based
I knew someone - gosh, it was almost 25 years ago! - who believed that
we can choose our future from the ones made available by the MWI.
OK, you chose to go down branch X, but if MWI is true then in some other
worlds you chose to follow branch Y; and in all worlds you made the choice
you did
On 10 Jun 2014, at 03:06, LizR wrote:
Actually on re-reading I'm even less sure I follow what you're
saying. Do you not think there is anything fundamental, and if so,
could you explain how that works? I seem to recall Stephen Paul King
(I think it was) saying that there were two
On 6/10/2014 1:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 10 June 2014 16:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Yeah that's pretty close, although I'd say consciousness just occurs at a
different
level of description and is equally real at that level. The second law of
On 6/10/2014 2:04 AM, LizR wrote:
Having just re-re-read my good friend Wikipaedia's article on this, I'm still not sure
exactly what Turing is proposing. It looks like what you said - that both a man and a
computer tries to fool the judge that they're a woman! Which is bizarre, but so are
On 10 Jun 2014, at 04:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/9/2014 5:55 PM, LizR wrote:
On 10 June 2014 10:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/9/2014 2:46 PM, LizR wrote:
I guess I could venture that it's the ontology of any TOE in which
interactions are all 3p.
OK, thanks. So I would guess
On 10 Jun 2014, at 06:51, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 04:39:14PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 10 June 2014 14:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/9/2014 6:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
OK - there are 2 future branches, A and B, each of which have equal
objective
No, no! Have a coffee with a physical anthropologist, and ask him/her about
revenge in primates, both great apes and monkeys. They will inform this
conversation, and get you to see how the great ape called human, and the other
primates behave in similar ways for similar apparent reasons. You
Free will by way of reasoning allows us to choose our future like which Ivy
League school should I attend.
Richard
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:28 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that free will arises
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 10 Jun 2014, at 06:51, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 04:39:14PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 10 June 2014 14:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/9/2014 6:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
OK
On 10 Jun 2014, at 13:00, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 08 Jun 2014, at 12:30, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 6:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 June 2014 15:43, spudboy100 via Everything List
On 6/10/2014 4:37 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 10 June 2014 04:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
They're along for the ride like temperature is alftr on the kinetic
energy of
molecules. Before stat mech, heat was regarded as an immaterial substance.
Brent:
you gave me a quiet hour with your question of the difference between 10^-5
and 10^-10
I have a low opinion about statistics, since it can change if you alter the
borders within
which you count the countable units. Experiment ditto, depending on the
development
in measuring/processing
Richard:
where do you take a FREE REASONING from? I believe you just change
'will' into 'reasoning' - or: 'choice' int 'decision'?
Are the so called counterproductive (self-destructive etc.) decisions based
on past experience? Do (unknown/unknowable) pressures influence our
decisions? are we
Irrational number?
Are 'angels' rational? if not you cannot count them anyway.
JM
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 9:59 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah yes, that gives us another definition - the ability to do things that
aren't optimal / rational. I knew there were more definitions lurking
On 6/10/2014 8:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2014, at 19:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/9/2014 1:35 AM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2014 18:24, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2014 4:03 PM, LizR wrote:
David Nyman gave a much more rigorous
Here below is my free will produced by typing under random brain noise
produced by budist meditation.
()()(?)(¿?¿))(Y/$$=)
Enjoy.
2014-06-10 2:13 GMT+02:00, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com:
Summary: Our ability to make choices -- and sometimes mistakes
On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:48:29 AM UTC-4, Samiya wrote:
Thanks for sharing!
Sure, you're very welcome.
I found the 'built for a purpose' experiment with children and adults
quite interesting.
Yes! I forgot about that part actually, but yes very interesting how the
why? and
On 11 June 2014 08:39, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Irrational number?
Are 'angels' rational? if not you cannot count them anyway.
I see you have grasped the subtle satirical point of my post.
As I'm sure you've also realised , the other subtly satirical point was
that I put this
Or to quote Pete and Dud...
WOOWOOWOOWWW
(Sorry I really need a more rounded font to make that work properly)
On 11 June 2014 09:16, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Here below is my free will produced by typing under random brain noise
produced by budist meditation.
Well, obviously it was based on Snow White! What's bizarre is actually
committing suicide at all, and especially in a manner based on a children's
animated film. But I suspect that it was an accident, and the apparent
coincidence was just that.
(What is it with gay people and Maleficent, anyway?
On 11 June 2014 05:43, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
I knew someone - gosh, it was almost 25 years ago! - who believed that
we can choose our future from the ones made available by the MWI.
OK, you chose to go down branch X, but if MWI is true then in some other
worlds you chose
On 11 June 2014 03:06, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
What? You don't believe demonic possession? Yea, vearily. What happens if
the organization, Sons of the Desert (laurel and hardy) detonates a 12
kiloton yield weapon in downtown Auckland. Are you
On 11 June 2014 04:35, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Jun 2014, at 19:13, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Ok good point
Justice and revenge are human inventions
Oh... That looks like a human belief.
I may have been too hasty. They're almost certainly evolutionary
On 10 June 2014 21:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I would argue that, at the ontological level, the explanation *does indeed*
make heat, or temperature, illusory. The whole point of the reduction is
to show that there could not, in principle, be any supernumerary something
left
Oh, but its not a NZ product, this is smuggled in from outsize NZ and masked so
that no radiation is detected by your security services. Let us say a huge
amount of people are slain, I mean really, huge. Could one respond with such
dignity and rationality as you yourself possess? I know you
On 11 June 2014 11:22, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
But I strenuously reject that this is a gratuitous assumption in
context. In fact, you appeal to the same assumption in your statements
above. You hypothesise a theory capable of describing and predicting
mental states entirely
On 11 June 2014 11:22, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
Sure, but I don't know why you are ignoring the specific remarks that
I made about this very point. I took pains to explain that it used to
trouble me, as you say above, that the same reduction/elimination
critique could be
The whole point of using maths or arithmetic or logic as an ontological
base is of course the asumption that, loosely speaking, 2 + 2 must always =
4. If we accept that this is true, all else follows, to misquote Winston
Smith.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On 6/10/2014 4:22 PM, David Nyman wrote:
But to reiterate once more,
if we are tempted to see this as a sign that the search for further
explanation is futile, we should first reflect whether we have hit the
buffers of a particular explanatory strategy, rather than the limits
of explanation tout
On 6/10/2014 4:42 PM, LizR wrote:
The whole point of using maths or arithmetic or logic as an ontological base is of
course the asumption that, loosely speaking, 2 + 2 must always = 4. If we accept that
this is true, all else follows, to misquote Winston Smith.
Except as Peter Jones was fond
On 11 June 2014 11:26, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Oh, but its not a NZ product, this is smuggled in from outsize NZ and
masked so that no radiation is detected by your security services. Let us
say a huge amount of people are slain, I mean really,
On 11 June 2014 11:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/10/2014 4:42 PM, LizR wrote:
The whole point of using maths or arithmetic or logic as an ontological
base is of course the asumption that, loosely speaking, 2 + 2 must always =
4. If we accept that this is true, all else
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 09:00:35PM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 10 Jun 2014, at 06:51, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 04:39:14PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 10 June 2014 14:52, meekerdb
On 11 June 2014 12:22, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
As for mechanism? There won't be one, certainly not sharable
scientifically, anyway. Any number of arcane rituals or spells might
work, or might not. For me, I don't think this stuff gets much beyond
bar talk - but maybe
On 6/10/2014 5:22 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
In answer to Bruno's question, indeed the ability to influence one's
subjective probability in this was will lead to a departure from
normality, one that is not visible objectively to any third party. In
short, the reality you inhabit will
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:12:40PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/10/2014 5:22 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
In answer to Bruno's question, indeed the ability to influence one's
subjective probability in this was will lead to a departure from
normality, one that is not visible objectively to any
The whole point here is that it's supposed to work despite the people
involved remaining alive. With quantum suicide you can see the results by
counting the branches in which various outcomes occur. In this scenario,
you can't (which is why it's so much harder, at least for me, to get my
head
57 matches
Mail list logo
