On Aug 1, 4:31 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> I believe that babbage machine, if terminated, can run a program
>> capable to see a larger spectrum than us.
>
> > Why do you, or why should I believe that though?
>
> Well, it is a consequence of digital mechanism, alias computationalism.
It seems lik
On Aug 1, 8:07 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 1. You agree that is possible to make something that behaves as if
> it's conscious but isn't conscious.
N. I've been trying to tell you that there is no such thing as
behaving as if something is conscious. It doesn't mean anything
because cons
On 8/1/2011 5:07 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Nice. You're making my point though. We would have no clue that our
brains could think by the exterior behavior of the neurons it's made
of. It's only because we are our brains that we kn
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> Nice. You're making my point though. We would have no clue that our
> brains could think by the exterior behavior of the neurons it's made
> of. It's only because we are our brains that we know it is the case
> that groups of neurons do thi
On 01 Aug 2011, at 21:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Aug 1, 2:08 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That's correct (in the comp theory). It is a very complex lattice,
but
once you say "yes" to the doctor, it can be described as a number.
What if you say yes to the doctor, and then realize that you'v
On Aug 1, 2:08 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> That's correct (in the comp theory). It is a very complex lattice, but
> once you say "yes" to the doctor, it can be described as a number.
What if you say yes to the doctor, and then realize that you've made a
terrible mistake later on?
> The
> lat
On Aug 1, 2:33 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 01 Aug 2011, at 01:12, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > What would be the part of a burning log that you need to emulate to
> > preserve it's fire?
>
> What you call fire is a relation between an observer and fire, and
> what you need consists in emulating
On Aug 1, 2:49 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> If you don't do that you will not even convince yourself, and nobody
> will able to show you wrong (and thus you will not learn).
I'm not trying to convince anyone or be right, even myself. I'm trying
to explain an integrated set of ideas which seem to
On Aug 1, 2:55 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> That happens with comp too, if you grasp the seventh UDA step. Our
> first person experience are distributed in a non computable way in the
> universal dovetailing.
>
> You have a good intuition, but you assume much to much. The goal is to
> explain
On 01 Aug 2011, at 01:12, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm not sure, I just have a hunch. Must there not be an opposite of a
Turing machine? That's what I would use to emulate the material
filter.
That happens with comp too, if you grasp the seventh UDA step. Our
first person experience are distri
On 01 Aug 2011, at 01:12, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I do strive for rigorous clarity, but I think that the nature of the
subject matter itself is oceanic and paradoxical.
It is a reason to be as clear as possible.
In front of paradox or contradiction, if we are clear, we can discuss
which axio
On 01 Aug 2011, at 01:12, Craig Weinberg wrote:
But to justify that you believe that comp is
false, you have to introduce some special non Turing emulable
components. And this looks a bit like invoking UFO to explain global
warming.
You just told me that "On the contrary, some machine's at
On 01 Aug 2011, at 01:12, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Meh. 'Can't be applied in practice' = unicornlandia to me
That is engineering, not fundamental science. Also, you cannot know in
advance the applications.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you
On 01 Aug 2011, at 01:12, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I think that the act of not committing himself to anything beyond the
terms of his theory is an unscientific, and arbitrarily sentimental
commitment.
Not in science. We put the cart of the table. This does not mean we
can believe in many other
On 01 Aug 2011, at 01:12, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What would be the part of a burning log that you need to emulate to
preserve it's fire?
What you call fire is a relation between an observer and fire, and
what you need consists in emulating the fire and the observers at his
right substitut
On 01 Aug 2011, at 01:40, Pzomby wrote:
The following quote is from the book “What is Mathematics Really?” by
Reuben Hersh
“0 (zero) is particularly nice. It is the class of sets equivalent
to the set of all objects unequal to themselves! No object is unequal
to itself, so 0 is the class o
On Aug 1, 1:55 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 01 Aug 2011, at 01:12, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > What machine attributes are not Turing emulable? I thought Church says
> > that all real computations are Turing emulable.
>
> But for Church the "real computations" are what can do a finite mind
> wi
On 01 Aug 2011, at 01:12, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You are right, but this only means that we fail on the correct
substitution level.
If we are machine, we cannot know which machine we are, nor really
which computations go through, but we still face something partially
explainable.
Yes, substitu
On 01 Aug 2011, at 01:12, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What machine attributes are not Turing emulable? I thought Church says
that all real computations are Turing emulable.
But for Church the "real computations" are what can do a finite mind
with a finite set of transparent instructions, in a fi
On 31 Jul 2011, at 19:31, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
The notion of a TOE usually is used in a reductionist sense, as a
theory that can be used to predict everything.
A TOE should do that, in principle at least.
Of course it should be able to predict everything which is
predicti
If the experience of understanding the idea of comp can be emulated by
reproducing the brain function associated with thinking about it,
wouldn't that mean that the neurological patterns used are just as
primitive as the arithmetic represented by them?
--
You received this message because you are
On Aug 1, 5:24 am, "Stephen P. King" wrote:
> On 7/31/2011 7:40 PM, Pzomby wrote:
>
>
>
> > The following quote is from the book What is Mathematics Really? by
> > Reuben Hersh
>
> > 0 (zero) is particularly nice. It is the class of sets equivalent
> > to the set of all objects unequal to them
On 7/31/2011 7:40 PM, Pzomby wrote:
The following quote is from the book “What is Mathematics Really?” by
Reuben Hersh
“0 (zero) is particularly nice. It is the class of sets equivalent
to the set of all objects unequal to themselves! No object is unequal
to itself, so 0 is the class of all e
23 matches
Mail list logo
