Hi Russel & Gang,
I just sent this around to an internal email group
===
Hi,
It occurred to me that the latest empirical evidence surrounding brain
endogenous fields (the subject of my PhD thesis)
may be of general interest to the group. The actual scienc
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:53 AM, John Mikes wrote:
> Stathis,
> "upload the human brain?"
>
> I suppose (and hope) you are talking about the wider meaning of "brain", not
> the physiological tissue (fless) figment the 2002 medical science tackles
> with in our crania. THAT extended brain which
Hi Bruno
I will attempt to define the terms in a manner satisfactory to both of
us, and maybe we will understand each other this way.
CTM Computational Theory of Mind is the concept that "the mind literally
is a digital computer ... and that thought literally is a kind of
computation."
from
Neurobiologists Find that Weak Electrical Fields in the Brain Help
Neurons Fire Together
http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13401
Reminds me of what Colin says he is doing...
Cheers
--
Prof Russell Standish
On Feb 6, 5:30 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 06 Feb 2011, at 16:30, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 6, 8:51 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> On 06 Feb 2011, at 01:02, 1Z wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 5, 8:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> That's my point, COMP does not add more white rabbits from thi
Stathis,
"upload the human brain?"
I suppose (and hope) you are talking about the wider meaning of "brain", not
the physiological tissue (fless) figment the 2002 medical science tackles
with in our crania. THAT extended brain which is ready to monitor (report?)
unexpect(able)ed mental function
On Feb 6, 6:45 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 06 Feb 2011, at 16:37, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 7:43 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> On 05 Feb 2011, at 14:14, 1Z wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 4, 4:52 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 04 Feb 2011, at 13:45, David Nyman wrote:
>
> I am saying
On 06 Feb 2011, at 16:37, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 5, 7:43 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Feb 2011, at 14:14, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 4, 4:52 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2011, at 13:45, David Nyman wrote:
I am saying that IF comp is true, then the laws of physics are
derivable/emerging on
On 06 Feb 2011, at 16:30, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 6, 8:51 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Feb 2011, at 01:02, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
That's my point, COMP does not add more white rabbits from this
pov.
I dare say. But the Mathematical Multiverses do add a lo
On 06 Feb 2011, at 12:26, Andrew Soltau wrote:
On 06/02/11 08:51, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Feb 2011, at 01:02, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
That's my point, COMP does not add more white rabbits from this
pov.
I dare say. But the Mathematical Multiverses do
On Feb 5, 7:43 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 05 Feb 2011, at 14:14, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 4:52 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> On 04 Feb 2011, at 13:45, David Nyman wrote:
>
> >> I am saying that IF comp is true, then the laws of physics are
> >> derivable/emerging on the computations, in
On Feb 6, 8:51 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 06 Feb 2011, at 01:02, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 8:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> >> That's my point, COMP does not add more white rabbits from this pov.
>
> > I dare say. But the Mathematical Multiverses do add a lot more WRs
> > than
> > phy
On 06/02/11 08:51, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Feb 2011, at 01:02, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
That's my point, COMP does not add more white rabbits from this pov.
I dare say. But the Mathematical Multiverses do add a lot more WRs
than
physical multiverses.
Pro
On 06 Feb 2011, at 01:02, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:44 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
That's my point, COMP does not add more white rabbits from this pov.
I dare say. But the Mathematical Multiverses do add a lot more WRs
than
physical multiverses.
Prove this.
Once you take into account the r
14 matches
Mail list logo
