Dear David,
(see below.. I left your original text here...
=
> 4) Belief in 'magical emergence' qualitative novelty of a kind
> utterly unrelated to the componentry.
Hi Colin
I think there's a link here with the dialogue in the 'Asifism' t
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 02:22:20AM +0800, Mark Peaty wrote:
>
> I heard someone on the radio the other day saying that Moore's
> Law [doubling every 2 years] predicts that computers in about
> 2050 will have gross processing power similar to that of the
> human brain. Well the architecture may
Mark, i don't keep my finger on the fast forward, maybe on the "Next".
YOU MISSED the essence of my question: it was directed to Colin's
sentence as I recall: "Chemical field IS electrical field"
So I referred to the explanatory force of "Tohuvabohu IS vohubatovu"
Of course I appreciate Colin's ins
x call 2007
x call for participation in a speculative 12 hour life coding
event (organising hardware and software) to be held in Mid-November
as part of the Piksel festival in Bergen, Norway.
Deadline for email submission: July 31st 12AM [midnight]
Life coding is a mapping of the descrip
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 20:16:57 Brent Meeker wrote:
>> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
> The "subjective experience" is just some sort of behaviour. You can
> make computers show t
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 20:21:10 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
> Our language is very primitive. You can not decribe the reality with it.
>
> If you have a computer robot with a camera and an arm, how should that
> robot express itself to descibe what it observes? Could the robot say: "I
> see a red br
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 20:16:57 Brent Meeker wrote:
> Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
> >> Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
> >>> The "subjective experience" is just some sort of behaviour. You can
> >>> make computers show the same sort of >behavior,
TT; ' You behave as if you have "the subjective
> experience of first person". And it is possible for an enough
> complicated computer to show up the exact same behaviour. But in the
> case of the computer, you can see that there is no "subjective
> experience", there are just a lot of electric
>
> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>> What you call "the subjective experience of first person" is just some
>> sort of behaviour. When you claim that you have "the subjective
>> experience
>> of first person", I can see that you are just showing a special kind of
>> beh
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>> Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
>>> The "subjective experience" is just some sort of behaviour. You can make
>>> computers show the same sort of >behavior, if the computers are enough
>>> complicated.
>> But we're not
my a/, b/, c/, look terrible in variable spaced font, they were
prepared and sent in fixed font but the message I got back put
them in variable spacing and so out of alignment.
Regards
Mark Peaty CDES
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
Mark Peaty wrote:
> [Grin] I just fou
[Grin] I just found your question here John.
JM: 'What is electric field?'
MP: It is just part of a way of talking about that which is. In
combination with other good science it is an extremely useful
description of many consistencies in the world we see. It helps
us to be more exacting in di
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>> Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
>>>The "subjective experience" is just some sort of behaviour. You can make
>>> computers show the same sort of >behavior, if the computers are enough
>>> complicated.
>
>> But we're not talking about 3rd person
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 09:40:59AM -, David Nyman wrote:
>
> On Jun 19, 5:09 am, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > David, I was unable to perceive a question in what you just wrote. I
> > haven't a response, since (sadly) I was unable to understand what you
> > were talking a
Hello again,
I mean your point could be made about the universe like this:
Something which exists is contained/located somewhere.
The universe is not contained nor located anywhere, therefore the universe
does not exist.
This is a logical inconsistency and prove nothing, except that the logica
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
> Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
> >The "subjective experience" is just some sort of behaviour. You can make
> > computers show the same sort of >behavior, if the computers are enough
> > complicated.
>
> But we're not talking about 3rd person
On Jun 19, 5:09 am, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David, I was unable to perceive a question in what you just wrote. I
> haven't a response, since (sadly) I was unable to understand what you
> were talking about. :(
Really? I'm surprised, but words can indeed be very slippery in
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
>The "subjective experience" is
just some sort of behaviour. You can
make computers show the same sort of >behavior, if the computers are
enough complicated.
But we're not talking about 3rd person point of view. I can not see how
you reduce the subjective experien
>The "subjective experience" is just some sort of behaviour. You can make
computers show the same sort of >behavior, if the computers are enough
complicated.
But we're not talking about 3rd person point of view. I can not see how you
reduce the subjective experience of first person to the behavio
19 matches
Mail list logo
