On 18 August 2014 15:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/17/2014 8:49 PM, Stathis Papaioannou 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
On 18 August 2014 14:24, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 August 2014 15:49, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that a sustained stream of consciousness will probably be part of
a computation that instantiates physics - instantiates a whole universe
complete with
On 18 August 2014 20:10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 August 2014 14:24, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 August 2014 15:49, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that a sustained stream of consciousness will probably be part
of
a computation
On Monday, August 18, 2014 5:33:19 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
On 8/17/2014 5:43 AM, Pierz wrote:
Thank you Bruno for your response. Honestly I don't know if I'd say yes
to the doctor.
It's cowardly of me, but I think I'd like to see the device work on
someone else first.
If they
On 17 Aug 2014, at 14:43, Pierz wrote:
Thank you Bruno for your response. Honestly I don't know if I'd say
yes to the doctor.
Nor do I.
Actually, even if comp is true, I might say no, because I might not
trust the doctor's skill, or the choice of the level.
It's cowardly of me, but I
On Saturday, August 9, 2014 2:48:48 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
On 8/8/2014 8:34 PM, Pierz wrote:
In The Conscious Mind, Chalmers bases his claim that materialism has
failed to provide an explanation for consciousness on a distinction between
'logical' and 'natural' supervenience, where
On 17 Aug 2014, at 06:28, meekerdb wrote:
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
On 17 Aug 2014, at 07:23, LizR wrote:
PS You do know you can delete posts from the EL, don't you?
But not from the mail boxes. Besides, I am against all post deletions,
except on facebook when people use your wall for advertising, or when
they repeat insults.
What would be nice is an
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sunday, August 17, 2014, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/16/2014 10:16 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 16 August 2014 10:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/15/2014 4:34 PM,
On Monday, August 18, 2014 9:19:32 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Aug 2014, at 14:43, Pierz wrote:
Thank you Bruno for your response. Honestly I don't know if I'd say yes to
the doctor.
Nor do I.
Actually, even if comp is true, I might say no, because I might not
trust the
On 18 August 2014 12:19, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Then the arithmetical realism suggests the existence of approximation of
physical realities, without observers. The falling leaf will make a sound
(a 3p wave), but of course, without observers, there will be no perception
or
On 18 August 2014 14:15, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
OK that may be true, but without an observer, nothing will exist to select
out that computation from the chaotic infinities. I don't know how you can
say that the leaf meaningfully exists, because other computational threads
will destroy
On 8/18/2014 1:35 AM, LizR wrote:
On 18 August 2014 20:10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
mailto:stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 August 2014 14:24, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 August 2014 15:49, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
On 8/18/2014 1:49 AM, Pierz wrote:
On Monday, August 18, 2014 5:33:19 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
On 8/17/2014 5:43 AM, Pierz wrote:
Thank you Bruno for your response. Honestly I don't know if I'd say yes
to the
doctor.
It's cowardly of me, but I think I'd like to see the
On 8/18/2014 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The laws will always assured the existence of computations in which you survive, and
have that quantum MW aspects, but in some consciousness state we might live some phase
transition between different physical realms. Obviously, we cannot get a
On 8/18/2014 4:38 AM, Pierz wrote:
On Saturday, August 9, 2014 2:48:48 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
On 8/8/2014 8:34 PM, Pierz wrote:
In The Conscious Mind, Chalmers bases his claim that materialism has
failed to
provide an explanation for consciousness on a distinction between
On 16 Aug 2014, at 21:46, meekerdb wrote:
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.
Not at all. It is a consequence of elementary arithmetic (addition and
On 16 Aug 2014, at 21:48, meekerdb wrote:
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 wrote:
On 8/14/2014 6:45 AM, Pierz wrote:
That is a weird assumption to
On 17 Aug 2014, at 07:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/16/2014 10:19 PM, LizR wrote:
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
On 17 Aug 2014, at 08:02, LizR wrote:
On 17 August 2014 17:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/16/2014 10:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 August 2014 07:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Both consciousness and physics supervene on the computations,
which exist necessarily.
On 18 August 2014 18:35, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 August 2014 20:10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 August 2014 14:24, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 August 2014 15:49, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that a sustained stream of
On 18 August 2014 23:27, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not entirely clear on Bruno's argument on this last point. The way
I see it, if a brain is simulated by a computer program, what is being
simulated is the physics; and if comp is true, that means that
simulating the
On 19 August 2014 06:59, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You're trying to isolate the consciousness from it's context so that it's
just data and patterns and 1s and 0s and neuron pulses. I'm saying
consciousness requires a context, in fact I think it requires a physics.
This is, I
I wish that often, but then I'm (a) pernickety* about grammar and spelling,
and (b) generally in a hurry!
*Or a word spelled something like that!
On 18 August 2014 23:44, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Aug 2014, at 07:23, LizR wrote:
PS You do know you can delete posts from
Are you aware of the research by the dating website OKCupid that showed that the best way
to find out if your date believes in God, without asking directly, is to ask if they are
persnickety about spelling and grammar. No indicates a likely believer. Yes means a
likely atheist.
It's purely
On 8/18/2014 4:23 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 18 August 2014 23:27, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
mailto:stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not entirely clear on Bruno's argument on this last point. The way
I see it, if a brain is simulated by a computer program, what is being
On 8/18/2014 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The laws will always assured the existence of computations in which you
survive, and have that quantum MW aspects, but in some consciousness state
we might live some phase transition between different physical realms.
Obviously, we cannot get a physical
27 matches
Mail list logo
