On 23 March 2015 at 07:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't think step 3 is at all essential to the argument. It's nothing
but setting up an analogy to Everett's MWI to show how uncertainty and
determinism are compatible - all of which JKC already accepts.
I have put this point
On 3/22/2015 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Who? (Jean-Paul Delahaye? Bill Taylor? Invite them to present themselves an argument,
because if it is a valid argument, you have not yet succeeded to present it here).
Peter Jones. I don't know that Bruno is wrong, but would say, in the legal
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:24:35AM +1300, LizR wrote:
I've just revisited Russell's The MGA revisited in the hope of
understanding it. Unfortunately my pretty little head doesn't like being
bothered with such matters despite the spirit being willing so I found my
mind boggling a bit, as usual.
I am saying that I don't know if uranium fission can be made safer, and
cheaper. I also think that part of the cost is waste management. I think that
natural gas, solar and wind (with Storage) may now be the past of least
resistance.
-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes
On 21 Mar 2015, at 20:22, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/21/2015 1:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Do you think it is impossible to distinguish intelligence from
competence?
Competence is domain dependent, and can be evaluated, with exams,
tests, etc.
I could measure your competence in modal logic
This idea could work. Storage actually seems to be the last bottleneck. People
like electric cars, and do a reverse flow into the power grid seems
plausible-if the ruling billionaires see advantage to it. Don't under estimate
the storage issue, because its the main reason the US is not
On 21 Mar 2015, at 10:35, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:30 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 March 2015 at 08:51, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Because I spotted a blunder in the proof about 3 years ago and
despite reams of blather in hundreds of posts you
On 21 Mar 2015, at 18:31, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I remember a long discussion where John ended up changing his
claim that step 3 was wrong to it just being trivial. But then he
still refused to keep reading. At this point I
On 21 Mar 2015, at 21:38, Telmo Menezes wrote:
It is the p in []p p, which makes machine's knowledge not
definable in term of number and machine. S4Grz formalizable at a
level, what the machine cannot formalize about herself (but can bet
on, ...).
Thanks to incompleteness, the
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
I said it before I'll say it again, only somebody terrified of machine
intelligence would make that argument.
Who is making that argument? Not me. Not Bruno.
I flat out don't believe that. Forget about consciousness, nobody
On 22 Mar 2015, at 00:56, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Competence and intelligence are different things
If something made of protoplasm does it then it's intelligent, but
if something made of silicon and does the exact same thing then
On 22 Mar 2015, at 03:40, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:23 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
John appears to just not want to think about it, he's sure it's
wrong and he refuses to contemplate the possibility that he's wrong,
Just give me some reason the think it might
On 3/22/2015 8:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Mar 2015, at 10:35, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:30 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 March 2015 at 08:51, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been given the impression that nuclear waste can be reprocessed in
thorium reactors, which I assume includes spent Uranium? But I am (of
course) not an expert on this. Everything I know about thorium reactors I
learned from an article in Cosmos (I think it was).
On 23 March 2015 at 03:48,
On 22 Mar 2015, at 17:50, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
I said it before I'll say it again, only somebody terrified of
machine intelligence would make that argument.
Who is making that argument? Not me. Not Bruno.
I flat out don't
On 22 Mar 2015, at 03:23, LizR wrote:
On 21 March 2015 at 22:35, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
I remember a long discussion where John ended up changing his claim
that step 3 was wrong to it just being trivial. But then he still
refused to keep reading. At this point I
Hi,
I think something with which he couldn't disagree with would be the
different steps explained avoiding using pronous like you/I... it's
possible to do so using N, Nx, Ny, Nxx, Nxy, Nyx, Nyy, ... notations and/or
even using graphics, showing duplication/MWI with splitting or comp
(infinity of
Another comment on the same post by Liz.
On 22 Mar 2015, at 03:23, LizR wrote:
On 21 March 2015 at 22:35, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
I remember a long discussion where John ended up changing his claim
that step 3 was wrong to it just being trivial. But then he still
On 3/22/2015 2:45 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 March 2015 at 07:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
I don't think step 3 is at all essential to the argument. It's nothing but
setting
up an analogy to Everett's MWI to show how uncertainty and determinism are
I've just revisited Russell's The MGA revisited in the hope of
understanding it. Unfortunately my pretty little head doesn't like being
bothered with such matters despite the spirit being willing so I found my
mind boggling a bit, as usual.
However the nub seems to be something like this.
If
How else might one look at it?
(And how about the nub -- is that correct?)
On 23 March 2015 at 12:09, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:24:35AM +1300, LizR wrote:
I've just revisited Russell's The MGA revisited in the hope of
understanding it.
I am no expert either but I can read what experts write and the use logic and
experience for the rest.People are rightly fearful of radiation exposure.
There's lots of thorium and uranium to use. To make commercial reactors appears
too costly. One reason is the development costs for containment
OK, thanks.
Well, yes, it's true that I hadn't heard the term except in places like
this...
So anyway, the argument that the exact arrangement of the substrate isn't
necessary for consciousness means that the same experiences could be
generated by different arrangements of a given substrate, or
My main point is that supervenience is not what you think it is. Some
people think supervenience means that a particular arrangement of a
substrate is necessary for consciousness.
Of course, if you had never heard the term before, then it shouldn't
be a problem.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at
On 3/22/2015 5:38 PM, LizR wrote:
OK, thanks.
Well, yes, it's true that I hadn't heard the term except in places like this...
So anyway, the argument that the exact arrangement of the substrate isn't necessary for
consciousness means that the same experiences could be generated by different
On 23 Mar 2015, at 10:19 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/22/2015 2:45 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 March 2015 at 07:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't think step 3 is at all essential to the argument. It's nothing but
setting up an analogy to Everett's MWI to show
On 3/22/2015 8:55 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
But Bruno is only explicating how there can be an objectively determinsitic process
that *necessarily* produces a subjectively uncertain outcome.
Yes. Clark has to accept the necessary nature of FPI to be in aosition to go on.
Understanding step 3
On 23 Mar 2015, at 3:36 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/22/2015 8:55 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
But Bruno is only explicating how there can be an objectively determinsitic
process that *necessarily* produces a subjectively uncertain outcome.
Yes. Clark has to accept the
28 matches
Mail list logo
