On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 15:13, Bruce Kellett wrote:
But comp is false, as has been demonstrated by many observations.
What?
Reference?
You mean the brain is not Turing emulable?
Strong AI, or the possibility that part or all of
On 09 Jun 2015, at 01:26, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
or that maths exists independently of mathematicians.
That even just arithmetical truth is
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same
results always follow, regardless of by whom or at what time the
application is made. This is not what is usually referred to as
kicking back. Johnson did
On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
or that maths exists independently of mathematicians.
That even just arithmetical truth is independent of mathematician.
This is important because everyone agree with any axiomatic of the
numbers, but
On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 3:24 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 8 June 2015 at 13:30, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
If not, there is no possibility for a time variable in arithmetic
per se, and
On 09 Jun 2015, at 02:37, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 11:26, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
LizR wrote:
Reality isn't defined by what everyone agrees on. What makes ZFC (or
whatever) real, or not, is whether it kicks back. Is it something
that was invented, and could
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:24, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
What comp - or any theory of physics - has to show is that
observers will experience the passage of time. SR for example
posits a block universe, which at first sight might not seem to
allow for us to experience time. But of
On 09 Jun 2015, at 02:15, LizR wrote:
What comp - or any theory of physics - has to show is that observers
will experience the passage of time. SR for example posits a block
universe, which at first sight might not seem to allow for us to
experience time. But of course it does, even
On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 06:31, LizR wrote (to Brent)
Note that Bruno rejects the conditioning on justified. Plato's
Theaetetus dialogue defines knowledge as true belief. I think
that's a deficiency in modal
On 09 Jun 2015, at 00:21, LizR wrote:
On 8 June 2015 at 16:22, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
It seems here that you've snuck an extra assumption into comp1. We
know that brains can be conscious, and we assume that computations
can also be conscious. But that doesn't mean
On 09 Jun 2015, at 01:24, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 4:13 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 05:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm Let us be precise. That the computation take place in
arithmetic is a mathematical fact that nobody
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 11:26, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
LizR wrote:
Reality isn't defined by what everyone agrees on. What makes
ZFC
(or whatever) real, or not, is
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:06, meekerdb wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 03:30, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Note that it is important to distinguish between structures that
can be described mathematically and the structure of arithmetic or
mathematics themselves.
Yes. Quite
On 09 Jun 2015, at 04:08, meekerdb wrote:
This is stupid on so many levels, even on the most basic factual
one: You can't see the genitals of a pigeon. They're covered by
feathers. You have to poke them to get them even expose their
genitals.
They confused it with the feet of the
On 09 Jun 2015, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 4:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
or that maths exists independently of mathematicians.
That even just arithmetical truth is independent of
On 09 Jun 2015, at 04:10, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 June 2015 at 16:22, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
It seems here that you've snuck an extra assumption into comp1. We
know that brains can be conscious, and we
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:21, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 7:30 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 14:00, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2015 4:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 June 2015 at 05:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
or that maths
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:06, meekerdb wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 03:30, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Note that it is important to distinguish between
structures that can be described mathematically and the
On 9 Jun 2015, at 8:07 pm, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same results
always follow, regardless of by whom or at what time the application
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 15:13, Bruce Kellett wrote:
But comp is false, as has been demonstrated by many observations.
What?
Reference?
You mean the brain is not Turing emulable?
Strong AI, or the possibility that part or all of your brain can be
emulated by a computer does
On 9 Jun 2015, at 12:09 pm, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
A good resource for listening to Quran Recitation in Arabic plus Translation
for anyone interested in listening to he Quran:
http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/
Samiya
YOU WISH
Kim
--
You received this
On 08 Jun 2015, at 18:40, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
that is enough to conceive the set of the Gödel number of true
sentences of arithmetic, and prove theorems about that set. That
set can be defined in standard set theory
YOU CAN'T
On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hmm Let us be precise. That the computation take place in
arithmetic is a mathematical fact that nobody doubt today. UDA
explains only that we cannot use a notion of primitive matter for
making more
On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hence what I've called comp1 is the default materialist hypothesis
(also known as the strong AI thesis, I think)
Comp1 is not comp, even if it is comp for a materialist: but that
position is proved to be
I suppose you can call it that :)
People on this list have different assumptions, prejudices, misgivings, queries
and (dis)interest level in Islam and the practice of Muslims. Just presenting
the original document for any who might want to check for themselves.
Actually I was a bit hesitant
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 10:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This is stupid on so many levels, even on the most basic factual one:
You can't see the genitals of a pigeon. They're covered by feathers. You
have to poke them to get them even expose their genitals.
That's logic, but
On 6/9/2015 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 3:24 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 8 June 2015 at 13:30, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
If not, there is no possibility for a time
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
What axioms led to arithmetic?
The Peano axioms. They were chosen because they are very simple and self
evident. You need to be very conservative when picking axioms, for example
we could just add the Goldbach Conjecture as an
Hi everyone,
Something I have been thinking about. I start with two assumptions:
- Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is
likely to last longer (e.g. it is more likely to be able to anticipate
existencial threats and prepare accordingly; it is more likely to
On 6/9/2015 12:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
or that maths exists independently of mathematicians.
That even just arithmetical truth is independent of mathematician. This is important
because everyone agree
On 6/9/2015 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hence what I've called comp1 is the default materialist hypothesis (also known as the
strong AI thesis, I think)
Comp1 is not comp, even if it is comp for a
Perhaps most superintelligences end up merging into one super-ego, so that
their measure effectively becomes zero.
Terren
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
Hi everyone,
Something I have been thinking about. I start with two assumptions:
-
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
Perhaps most superintelligences end up merging into one super-ego, so
that their measure effectively becomes zero.
Perhaps, but I'm
On 6/9/2015 2:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 04:08, meekerdb wrote:
This is stupid on so many levels, even on the most basic factual one: You can't see the
genitals of a pigeon. They're covered by feathers. You have to poke them to get them
even expose their genitals.
They
On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:06, meekerdb wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 03:30, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Note that it is important to distinguish between
structures that can be
On 09 Jun 2015, at 18:59, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
What axioms led to arithmetic?
The Peano axioms.
Or the Robinson axiom, or many other systems. but they don't disagree
on any formula. Even the theories having weird axioms
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
Perhaps most superintelligences end up merging into one super-ego, so that
their measure effectively becomes zero.
Perhaps, but I'm not convinced that this would reduce its measure. Consider
the fact that you are no
On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same
results always follow, regardless of by whom or at what time the
application is made. This is not what is
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/9/2015 2:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 04:08, meekerdb wrote:
This is stupid on so many levels, even on the most basic factual one:
You can't see the genitals of a pigeon. They're covered by
On 6/9/2015 1:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
That can be useful in AI, and for natural language. But not in QED, string theory or
theoretical computer science.
A rocket using water instead of hydrogen gas will not work. That does not refute that
rockets can work.
Brent :)
--
You
On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Why not? If it can emulate a specific purpose Turning machine, it
can emulate a universal Turing machine. I think Putnam's argument
for unlimited pancomputationalism
On 09 Jun 2015, at 18:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/9/2015 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2015, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2015 3:24 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 8 June 2015 at 13:30, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is
likely to last longer
Maybe, but I note that smarter than average humans seem to have higher than
average rates of suicide too. Mathematicians kill themselves
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is
likely to last longer
Maybe, but I note that smarter than average humans seem to
The normal answer to this is as stated - a superintelligence may form, as
per various Arthur C Clark (or Olaf Stapledon, really) stories, by merging
lots of non-super intelligences. So the chances of finding yourself
non-super is vastly greater, because it takes billions of us to make one of
them.
On 10 June 2015 at 01:11, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
That is less difficult that you might think. Consciousness supervenes on
the physical brain
So (a) what actually is consciousness?, and (b) what is the answer to
Maudlin and the MGA?
--
You received this message
On 10 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same
results
On 10 June 2015 at 11:39, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 June 2015 at 08:37, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The normal answer to this is as stated - a superintelligence may form, as
per various Arthur C Clark (or Olaf Stapledon, really) stories, by merging
lots of
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 09:39:37AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 10 June 2015 at 08:37, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The normal answer to this is as stated - a superintelligence may form, as
per various Arthur C Clark (or Olaf Stapledon, really) stories, by merging
lots of
I was close :)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Given a set of axioms and some agreed rules of inference, the same
results always follow, regardless of by whom or at what time the
application is made.
The answer is, pigeon breeders have to make little sets of underwear for
their pigeons.
Simple, really.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
As Brent has suggested. You simply contradict yourself here.
You say It [comp] does not change physics, and If comp change the
content of physics, and nature follows physics, it will be comp which
has to be abandoned.
The
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:33 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 June 2015 at 11:15, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
From a quantum immortality perspective, I think if a superintelligence
was merging lots of intelligences, including yours, you find yourself in
increasingly
On 10 June 2015 at 08:37, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The normal answer to this is as stated - a superintelligence may form, as
per various Arthur C Clark (or Olaf Stapledon, really) stories, by merging
lots of non-super intelligences. So the chances of finding yourself
non-super is vastly
On 10 June 2015 at 11:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/9/2015 2:25 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Super-intelligence is more resilient than
On 6/9/2015 11:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You say that comp is useless, but what is your theory of mind. What is not Turing
emulable in the brain?
Its interaction with the universe. Of course that may be Turing emulable too, if the
universe is. But in that case you've just emulated
From a quantum immortality perspective, I think if a superintelligence was
merging lots of intelligences, including yours, you find yourself in
increasingly unlikely situations where you were able to escape being merged
with the superintelligence. Eventually, against all odds, you might be the
On 6/9/2015 11:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We might defined nomological inconsistency by [i] ip [i] i~p, for [i] being a
material hypostase.
?? What role does i play in the above? Are you assuming i implies p?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On 10 June 2015 at 11:15, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
From a quantum immortality perspective, I think if a superintelligence was
merging lots of intelligences, including yours, you find yourself in
increasingly unlikely situations where you were able to escape being merged
On 6/9/2015 2:25 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Super-intelligence is more resilient
LizR wrote:
On 10 June 2015 at 01:11, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
That is less difficult that you might think. Consciousness
supervenes on the physical brain
So (a) what actually is consciousness?, and (b) what is the answer to
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Terren Suydam
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
Perhaps most superintelligences end up merging into one
On 10 June 2015 at 13:35, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 9:09 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 9:09 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 12:07, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Given a set
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The details of the operation of the brain, and its effect on
consciousness, are the realm of study of the neurosciences.
Computer scientists only ever confuse themselves over these quite
simple matters.
The neuro-science
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Why not? If it can emulate a specific purpose Turning machine, it
can emulate a universal Turing machine. I think Putnam's argument
for unlimited
What if they were, like, a really, really, big pigeons, then you'd spot them
real easy! Think about that, Mister! Sakes!
-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Jun 8, 2015 10:08 pm
Subject: Re:
Doing Dawa? Interesting.
-Original Message-
From: Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Jun 8, 2015 10:09 pm
Subject: Quran Audio
A good resource for listening to Quran Recitation in Arabic plus Translation
for
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Why not? If it can emulate a specific purpose Turning machine, it can
emulate a universal Turing machine. I think Putnam's argument for
unlimited pancomputationalism implies this.
I am not convince by that argument. Show
On 10 Jun 2015, at 11:53 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 June 2015 at 13:35, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 10 Jun 2015, at 9:09 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 June 2015 at 10:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote:
You appear to want to draw this conclusion from FPI. But in a
discussion with Liz a while back, I challenged this interpretation of
your teleportation thought experiments leading to FPI. It was readily
shown that such
On 10 June 2015 at 15:23, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Both. I'm exploring the concept of solipsism with a positive attitude.
What are the benefits? Your attempts at humour always hit the mark (with
me.)
Thanks! :)
So yes, I don't think hurling 'solopsist!' at someone hurts
74 matches
Mail list logo
