Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)
2009/1/11 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com: I'm suggesting that running a state is incoherent. A machine running a program goes through a sequence of states. Consider 20 consecutive states, s1 to s20, which give rise to several moments of consciousness. Would you say that running the sequence s1 to s20 on a single machine m1 will give a different conscious experience to running s1 to s10 on m1 and separately s11 to s20 on m2? -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Exact Theology was:Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5
Gosh, you make me realize that I have lost my book by Steinhart. . I did appreciated it some time ago. Thanks for the references. Best, Bruno On 09 Jan 2009, at 21:26, Günther Greindl wrote: Hello, My domain is theology. scientific and thus agnostic theology. I specialized my self in Machine's theology. Or Human's theology once assuming comp. The UDA shows (or should show) that physics is a branch of theology, so that the AUDA makes Machine's theology experimentally refutable. Will machines go to paradise? Some related work: http://www.ericsteinhart.com/abstracts.html Especially: Steinhart, E. (2004) Pantheism and current ontology. Religious Studies 40 (1), 1 - 18. ABSTRACT: Pantheism claims: (1) there exists an all-inclusive unity; and (2) that unity is divine. I review three current and scientifically viable ontologies to see how pantheism can be developed in each. They are: (1) materialism; (2) platonism; and (3) class-theoretic pythagoreanism. I show how each ontology has an all-inclusive unity. I check the degree to which that unity is: eternal; infinite; complex; necessary; plentiful; self-representative; holy. I show how each ontology solves the problem of evil (its theodicy) and provides for salvation (its soteriology). I conclude that platonism and pythagoreanism have the most divine all-inclusive unities. They support sophisticated contemporary pantheisms. and Steinhart, E. (2003) Supermachines and superminds. Minds and Machines 13 (1), 155 - 186. ABSTRACT: If the computational theory of mind is right, then minds are realized by computers. There is an ordered complexity hierarchy of computers. Some finite state machines realize finitely complex minds; some Turing machines realize potentially infinitely complex minds. There are many logically possible computers whose powers exceed the Church-Turing limit (e.g. accelerating Turing machines). Some of these supermachines realize superminds. Superminds perform cognitive supertasks. Their thoughts are formed in infinitary languages. They perceive and manipulate the infinite detail of fractal objects. They have infinitely complex bodies. Transfinite games anchor their social relations. Especially the first paper (concerning Pythagorenaism) is interesting. Best Wishes, Günther http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Francis Godwin (1562-1633)
cipher http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CA1HuL9WSw --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5
On 10 Jan 2009, at 02:26, Kim Jones wrote: On 10/01/2009, at 5:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I admire too. Kim is courageous. Well, for the tenacity we will see :) Gee thanks Doctor! I'll try not disappoint you. At the moment I am devoting an egregious amount of time to searching for employment as my ability to sit and cogitate on Correct Machine Theology will be severely curtailed if I don't find a job soon. Life is not easy. Wish you the best. In the meantime, is there any chance of a bus slogan campaign: There Probably Is a Universal Dovetailer Computing All of Reality. Too much technical and ambiguous imo. The danger with comp is that a slight misunderstanding of it can transform it into a reductionism or even a nihilism. Now, All Of You Theologians, Start Worrying and Start Studying Quantum Physics, Computationalism and Modal Logic. Modal logic is generally considered as an invention of theologian. It has been a practical tool for religious metaphysics among Middle-Age theologians, especially in Middle East. You could as well have said Scientists, Start Worrying to have to ReStart the Study of Plato's Theology. But I am not sure we should start worry people with a subject which can so easily give too much metaphysical vertigo. Take it easy, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Exact Theology was:Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5
Which one did you have? Was it good? (I only know his papers) Cheers, Günther Bruno Marchal wrote: Gosh, you make me realize that I have lost my book by Steinhart. . I did appreciated it some time ago. Thanks for the references. Best, Bruno On 09 Jan 2009, at 21:26, Günther Greindl wrote: Hello, My domain is theology. scientific and thus agnostic theology. I specialized my self in Machine's theology. Or Human's theology once assuming comp. The UDA shows (or should show) that physics is a branch of theology, so that the AUDA makes Machine's theology experimentally refutable. Will machines go to paradise? Some related work: http://www.ericsteinhart.com/abstracts.html Especially: Steinhart, E. (2004) Pantheism and current ontology. Religious Studies 40 (1), 1 - 18. ABSTRACT: Pantheism claims: (1) there exists an all-inclusive unity; and (2) that unity is divine. I review three current and scientifically viable ontologies to see how pantheism can be developed in each. They are: (1) materialism; (2) platonism; and (3) class-theoretic pythagoreanism. I show how each ontology has an all-inclusive unity. I check the degree to which that unity is: eternal; infinite; complex; necessary; plentiful; self-representative; holy. I show how each ontology solves the problem of evil (its theodicy) and provides for salvation (its soteriology). I conclude that platonism and pythagoreanism have the most divine all-inclusive unities. They support sophisticated contemporary pantheisms. and Steinhart, E. (2003) Supermachines and superminds. Minds and Machines 13 (1), 155 - 186. ABSTRACT: If the computational theory of mind is right, then minds are realized by computers. There is an ordered complexity hierarchy of computers. Some finite state machines realize finitely complex minds; some Turing machines realize potentially infinitely complex minds. There are many logically possible computers whose powers exceed the Church-Turing limit (e.g. accelerating Turing machines). Some of these supermachines realize superminds. Superminds perform cognitive supertasks. Their thoughts are formed in infinitary languages. They perceive and manipulate the infinite detail of fractal objects. They have infinitely complex bodies. Transfinite games anchor their social relations. Especially the first paper (concerning Pythagorenaism) is interesting. Best Wishes, Günther http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- Günther Greindl Department of Philosophy of Science University of Vienna guenther.grei...@univie.ac.at Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/ Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/1/11 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com: I'm suggesting that running a state is incoherent. A machine running a program goes through a sequence of states. Consider 20 consecutive states, s1 to s20, which give rise to several moments of consciousness. Would you say that running the sequence s1 to s20 on a single machine m1 will give a different conscious experience to running s1 to s10 on m1 and separately s11 to s20 on m2? I'm suggesting that there has to be something that makes the states a sequence instead of just a set or an aggregate. Brent --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
