That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
-- P.C. Hodgell
Today, among logicians, Bayesian Inference seems to be the new dogma
for all encompassing theory of rationality. But I have different
ideas, so I'm going to present an argument suggesting an alternative
form of reasoning. In
On 27 Aug 2009, at 08:19, marc.geddes wrote:
But is there a form of math more powerful than algebra? Yes,
Category/
Set Theory! Unlike algebra, Category/Set theory really *can* fully
reason about itself, since Sets/categories can contain other Sets/
Categories. Greg Cantor first
2009/8/26 David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com:
2009/8/26 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com:
With the example of the light, you alter the photoreceptors in the
retina so that they respond the same way when to a blue light that
they would have when exposed to a red light.
Ah, so the
2009/8/27 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Does functionalism mean nothing more than if the same inputs produce
the same outputs then the experience will be the same? I think this
is to simplistic. To reduce it to a really simple example, suppose
your brain functions so that:
You
2009/8/27 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
You are right. A simpler example is a dreamer and a rock, and the
whole universe. They have locally the same input and output: none! So
they are functionally identical, yet very different from the first
person perspective. This is why in comp I
2009/8/27 David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com:
There's something trickier here, too. When you say unless you are
the system, this masks an implicit - and dualistic - assumption in
addition to PM monism. It is axiomatic that any properly monistic
materialist account must hold all properties
2009/8/27 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com:
This is because if consciousness is a computational process then it is
independant of the (physical or ... virtual) implementation. If I
perfom the computation on an abacus or within my head or with stones
on the ground... it is the same (from
2009/8/27 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com:
Perhaps not, but it's just words. Materialists use dualism as a term
of abuse, and some materialists will call anyone who thinks a lot
about consciousness a dualist, while some of those who think a lot
about consciousness will do anything to
On 24 Aug, 16:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Aug 2009, at 21:10, Brent Meeker wrote:
But you see Brent, here you confirm that materialist are religious in
the way they try to explain, or explain away the mind body problem. I
can imagine that your consciousness supervene
On 26 Aug, 01:00, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
Just so. To recapitulate the (approximate) history of this part of the
discussion, Peter and I had been delving into the question - posed by
him - of whether a complete scan of a brain at the subatomic level
could in principle
On 27 Aug, 01:35, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/27 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
The idea of 'being' somebody (or thing) else already assumes dualism.
It assumes some 'I' that could move to be Stathis or a bat and yet
retain some identity. But on a
marc.geddes wrote:
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
-- P.C. Hodgell
Today, among logicians, Bayesian Inference seems to be the new dogma
for all encompassing theory of rationality. But I have different
ideas, so I'm going to present an argument suggesting an
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2009/8/26 David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com:
2009/8/26 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com:
With the example of the light, you alter the photoreceptors in the
retina so that they respond the same way when to a blue light that
they would have when exposed to a red
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2009/8/27 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Does functionalism mean nothing more than if the same inputs produce
the same outputs then the experience will be the same? I think this
is to simplistic. To reduce it to a really simple example, suppose
your
On 21 Aug, 16:39, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/21 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
Do you concede that many aspects of mind -- cognition, memory and so
on --
are not part of any Hard Problem?
Yes, absolutely. But I think our basic divergence is that I say you
can't
On 21 Aug, 21:01, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com 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
On 21 Aug, 20:40, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Aug 2009, at 17:39, David Nyman wrote:
With UDA alone, of course not.
But AUDA does provides a a theory of qualia which explains why no 1-
person can and will ever explain the qualitative feature of its qualia.
It treats
2009/8/27 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
and hence that it can't
in and of itself tell us anything fundamental about ontology.
I don't think it revelas it sown ontology. OTOH, it must somehow
be taken accounto fi in any succesful ontology because everything
must.
I've considered the
On 26 Aug, 17:58, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Aug 2009, at 17:58, Brent Meeker wrote:
What about lower levels? Surely it doesn't matter whether 10,000 K+
cross the axon membrane or 10,001 cross. So somehow looking at just
the right level matters in the hypothesis of
On 27 Aug, 08:54, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/26 David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com:
This is because if consciousness is a computational process then it is
independant of the (physical or ... virtual) implementation. If I
perfom the computation on an abacus or within my
David Nyman wrote:
2009/8/27 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
and hence that it can't
in and of itself tell us anything fundamental about ontology.
I don't think it revelas it sown ontology. OTOH, it must somehow
be taken accounto fi in any succesful ontology because
Flammarion wrote:
On 21 Aug, 21:01, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com 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
22 matches
Mail list logo
