Jesse Mazer wrote:
[quoting Stathis, responding to a post by George Levy]
The high standard I have described does not go nearly as far as copying
the exact quantum state of every atom. It is merely aknowledging the fact
that information in brains is not stored in the anatomical arrangement of
On Jul 6, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:PC:But isn't the use of time as the dimension along which things vary (or are 'processed') a somewhat arbitrary choice?[SPK] Please notice that the identification of "time" with a "dimension" involves the identification with each moment in
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 04:51:23PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I have no problem with the idea that everything about a person's
personality, memories etc. is physically encoded in his brain, and that in
principle, sufficiently detailed knowledge about his brain should allow an
Le 06-juil.-05, à 00:56, Russell Standish a écrit :
You are right, my apologies. I read the necessitation rule backwards
in your thesis. You do in fact say P = []P. I'll take your word for
it that consistency destroys necessitation, but I don't have the
intuitive understanding of it yet. Never
Le 06-juil.-05, à 02:44, Lee Corbin a écrit :
Bruno wrote about whether or not we are all the same person.
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: What does ought mean? (was RE: Duplicates Are Selves)
I have changed the subject line once again, because this is
no longer about
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 12:49:07PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The high standard I have described does not go nearly as far as copying
the exact quantum state of every atom. It is merely aknowledging the fact
Two systems in the same quantum state being indistinguishable is only
Le 06-juil.-05, à 07:16, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 06:47:40PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
There have been many, many investigations of this idea. It may
not be an exaggeration to say that the main theme of this list
has been a pursuit of the idea. But Stephen Paul King
Le 07-juil.-05, à 04:55, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
How does a quasi-zombie differ from a full zombie?
Well a full zombie is not conscious at all. By a quasi-zombie I was
meaning someone with some consciousness pathologies.
And how could his descendants ever realise this, even
Le 07-juil.-05, à 08:51, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
If mind uploads were to become a reality, I think the best strategy
would be research into brain-computer interfacing.
I think so. I have recently discovered impressioning progress in
neuronal nets used for handicaped (completely
Le 07-juil.-05, à 16:27, Eugen Leitl a écrit :
Currently, there's only output, not input. It's invasive, and the
electrodes
don't age well.
Actually (but I'm not a specialist) I read about systems not using
electrodes. The neural nets was sensible to the waves of barin activity
like in a
Hi Lee:
At 09:47 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote:
snip
Where I join you (in failing to understand) is what happens as
the OM becomes of zero length. I did not say *the limit as
it becomes zero*, I said zero. It's almost as though some
people take this as license to suppose that time is not a
Dear Hal,
Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming?
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers
Hi Lee:
At 09:47 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote:
snip
Hi Stephen:
At 03:03 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
Dear Hal,
Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming?
Stephen
Let me try it this way:
1) All possible states preexist [Existence].
2) The system has a random dynamic [the Nothing is incomplete in the
All/Nothing system and must
Bruno,
After reading your Universal Dovetailer Argument (UDA) and I?d like to
give you my reaction. It seems to me that the trick is hidden in your
assumptions. I think you?ve even stated that before (using ?embedded?
rather than ?hidden?), referring especially to comp. But I?d say that
Dear Hal,
let me know if my (naive) worldview on Stephen's question is compatible with
what you wrote (below):
(to1: I don't know what to do with all possible because it is far beyond
any idea we may have. Unless we restrict the 'all' to whatever we can
think/know of).
to2: In the inherent and
Bruno writes
Each Lee-i is offered 5$ each time his bet is confirmed, but
loses 5$ if he makes a wrong bet.
And yes, it would be possible to emphasize to each instance that
he is to attempt to maximize his own instance's earnings.
Quite correct.
What will be your strategy in each
16 matches
Mail list logo
