Pierz, you have said exactly the reason why I am willing to give Bruno's
ideas so much time. It's the fact that IF he's right, then he has actually
caught sight of the end of the explanatory chain, which otherwise has only
ever been grounded in an unsatisfactory deity or a chain of turtles -
i.e.
I've been thinking more on the lookup table business and my suggestion that
the lookup table becomes so large in mapping all input-outputs that it ends
up being the same as doing the computation. It's wrong, so long as we only
record some final behavioural output and not the actual machine
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 6:35 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Pierz, you have said exactly the reason why I am willing to give Bruno's
ideas so much time. It's the fact that IF he's right, then he has actually
caught sight of the end of the explanatory chain, which otherwise has only
ever
On 16 August 2014 16:48, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
I assert this confidently on the basis of my intuitions as a programmer,
without being able to rigorously prove it, but a short thought experiment
should get halfway to proving it. Imagine a lookup table of all possible
additions of two
Bruno IMO does not end the chain so-to-speak because he does not say where
the natural numbers come from other than invoking Platonia. Super-string
theory does. But it invokes even more turtles, like where do the ten
dimensions come from.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014
Um, I hadn't read your subsequent posts when I wrote the above. It looks
like this is quite complicated, and I'm not going to bother my pretty head
trying to be clever about it when you're obviously far more so on this
subject.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On 16 August 2014 22:45, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno IMO does not end the chain so-to-speak because he does not say where
the natural numbers come from other than invoking Platonia. Super-string
theory does. But it invokes even more turtles, like where do the ten
dimensions
On Saturday, August 16, 2014 8:35:23 PM UTC+10, Liz R wrote:
Pierz, you have said exactly the reason why I am willing to give Bruno's
ideas so much time. It's the fact that IF he's right, then he has actually
caught sight of the end of the explanatory chain, which otherwise has only
ever
On Saturday, August 16, 2014 8:45:47 PM UTC+10, yanniru wrote:
Bruno IMO does not end the chain so-to-speak because he does not say where
the natural numbers come from other than invoking Platonia. Super-string
theory does. But it invokes even more turtles, like where do the ten
On Saturday, August 16, 2014 8:45:30 PM UTC+10, Liz R wrote:
On 16 August 2014 16:48, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
I assert this confidently on the basis of my intuitions as a programmer,
without being able to rigorously prove it, but a short thought experiment
should get
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 16, 2014 2:28:32 PM UTC+10, jessem wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 11:09 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/15/2014 5:30 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Russell
On Saturday, August 16, 2014 11:26:08 PM UTC+10, jessem wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 16, 2014 2:28:32 PM UTC+10, jessem wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 11:09 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:07 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Plus I don't believe it can be said that Bruno's theory makes everything
clear with respect to consciousness, as I've argued elsewhere.
Who can satisfy this suspiciously high bar? It seems to assume a posture
where people should
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 16, 2014 11:26:08 PM UTC+10, jessem wrote:
I think you're being misled by the particular example you chose
involving addition, in general there is no principle that says finding the
appropriate entry in a
On 16 August 2014 10:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net javascript:;
wrote:
On 8/15/2014 4:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I think these sorts of considerations show that the physical states
cannot
be responsible for generating or affecting consciousness.
How do they show that? I
On 8/16/2014 5:48 AM, Pierz wrote:
On Saturday, August 16, 2014 8:45:30 PM UTC+10, Liz R wrote:
On 16 August 2014 16:48, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
I assert this confidently on the basis of my intuitions as a
programmer, without
being able to rigorously
On 8/16/2014 10:16 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 16 August 2014 10:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net javascript:; wrote:
On 8/15/2014 4:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I think these sorts of considerations show that the physical states cannot
be responsible for generating or
On 14 Aug 2014, at 19:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/14/2014 1:41 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:25:40AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree with you in general, but I can agree a little bit with Liz
too, as I find Brent slightly sneaky on this issue, but all in all
Brent
On 15 Aug 2014, at 02:24, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/14/2014 4:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 August 2014 06:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/14/2014 6:45 AM, Pierz wrote:
That is a weird assumption to me and completely contrary to my own
intuition. Certainly a person born and kept alive
On 8/16/2014 12:27 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But not everything exist. Only K, S, (K K), (K S) (S K) (S S) ((K K) K), etc.
etc. = And you also assume that a UD exists.
Or if you prefer, only 0, s(0), s(s(0)), etc.
Plus their respective laws.
That's your hypothesis. Why not start
On 8/16/2014 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Aug 2014, at 02:24, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/14/2014 4:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 August 2014 06:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 8/14/2014 6:45 AM, Pierz wrote:
That is a weird assumption to me and
On 15 Aug 2014, at 04:15, meekerdb wrote:
Which would also imply that whether sensory deprivation was bad or
not would depend on how your brain was wired. I don't know whether
a fetus or even a baby is conscious or not. I think human-like
consciousness is partly dependent on language,
On 15 Aug 2014, at 05:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/14/2014 5:50 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:09:27PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 15 August 2014 09:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/14/2014 11:40 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Then it'd be no problem for
On 15 Aug 2014, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote:
FYI --
Brent
Original Message
http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130222-in-computers-we-trust/
In Computers We Trust?
As math grows ever more complex, will computers reign?
By: Natalie Wolchover
February 22, 2013
On 8/16/2014 4:57 PM, James Lindsay wrote:
Hi Brent,
Thanks for the note. I like the thought about mathematics as a refinement of language. I
also think of it as a specialization of philosophy, or even a highly distilled variant
upon it with limited scope. Indeed, I frequently conceive of
OOPS! I didn't intend to post this to the everything-list; although it may serve as an
introduction for James Lindsay if he decides to join the list. I wrote to him after
reading his book dot dot do which is about infinity in mathematics and philosophy.
Brent
On 8/16/2014 9:28 PM, meekerdb
On 17 August 2014 07:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Both consciousness and physics supervene on the computations, which
exist necessarily. Consciousness does not supervene on the physics.
Yes, I agreed to that. The question was can consciousness supervene on
computations that do
Never mind, you stated your position nice and clearly, perhaps more clearly
than you normally do on the EL.
(...or is that why you're saying OOPS! ? :-)
On 17 August 2014 16:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
OOPS! I didn't intend to post this to the everything-list; although it
may
PS You do know you can delete posts from the EL, don't you?
On 17 August 2014 17:23, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Never mind, you stated your position nice and clearly, perhaps more
clearly than you normally do on the EL.
(...or is that why you're saying OOPS! ? :-)
On 17 August 2014
On 8/16/2014 10:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 August 2014 07:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
Both consciousness and physics supervene on the computations, which
exist necessarily. Consciousness does not supervene on the physics.
Yes, I agreed to
30 matches
Mail list logo
