Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 2009/8/22 Brent Meeker :
>
>> That's an interesting question and one that I think relates to the
>> importance of context. A scan of your brain would capture all the
>> information in the Shannon/Boltzman sense, i.e. it would determine which
>> of the possible config
2009/8/22 Brent Meeker :
> That's an interesting question and one that I think relates to the
> importance of context. A scan of your brain would capture all the
> information in the Shannon/Boltzman sense, i.e. it would determine which
> of the possible configurations and processes were realize
Mirek,
I think it must be a very effective method of teaching binary
numbers. Perhaps I'll try it on my grandchildren. My four-year-old grandson
calls VCR tapes "rectangular DVD's". So he's probably ready for abstract
thinking. Thanks for the lesson.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 22 Aug 2009, at 20:06, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If the context, or even the whole physical universe, is needed, it is
>>> part of the "generalized" brain. Either the "generalized" brain is
>>> Turing emulable, and the reversal reas
On 22 Aug 2009, at 20:06, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If the context, or even the whole physical universe, is needed, it is
>> part of the "generalized" brain. Either the "generalized" brain is
>> Turing emulable, and the reversal reasoning will proceed, or it is
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 21 Aug 2009, at 22:01, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>> Flammarion wrote:
>>> Do you think that if you scanned my brain right down to the atomic
>>> level,
>>> you still wouldn't have captured all the information?
>>>
>> That's an interesting question and one that I think rel
m.a. wrote:
> a towel into the ring.
> I simply don't have the sort of mind that takes to juggling letters,
> numbers and symbols in increasingly fine-grained, complex arrangements.
[...]
Marty,
If I can ask, I'd be really interested what do you think of this
socratic experiment
http://www.garl
On 19 Aug 2009, at 22:26, Flammarion wrote:
>>
>> I understand both your discomfort with arithmetical realism and your
>> defence of PM, but this discussion hinges on "CTM +PM = true".
>> Couldn't we try to focus on the validity or otherwise of this claim?
>
> OK. It's invalid because you can't
On 21 Aug 2009, at 10:28, Flammarion wrote:
> 1. Something that ontologically exists can only be caused or generated
> by something else that does
> 2. I ontologically exist
> 3. According to you, I am generated by the UD
> 4. Therefore the UD must ontologically exist.
>
> Step 4 is really step
On 21 Aug 2009, at 22:01, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Flammarion wrote:
>>
>> Do you think that if you scanned my brain right down to the atomic
>> level,
>> you still wouldn't have captured all the information?
>>
>
> That's an interesting question and one that I think relates to the
> importance o
10 matches
Mail list logo
