Hi Friends,
Check this out!
Quote from:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-quantum-physicists-entanglement-nonlocality.html
"When it comes to space and time, modern physics defies our intuition in
the most dramatic way. Einstein's relativity theory tells us that time
and spac
On Jan 30, 10:33 pm, Terren Suydam wrote:
> Great, still on the same page. Without getting into speculations about the
> kinds of subjective experience a synthetic organism might have, we agree
> that whatever they do experience would be shaped in some way by their
> organization (like having rods
On Jan 30, 6:44 pm, John Mikes wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Jan 28, 5:20 pm, Terren Suydam wrote:
> > > I don't understand why you don't allow machine consciousness if in your
> > > theory all forces give rise to sense.
>
> > *Craig wrote*:
> > Biologic
Great, still on the same page. Without getting into speculations about the
kinds of subjective experience a synthetic organism might have, we agree
that whatever they do experience would be shaped in some way by their
organization (like having rods and cones or the silicon equivalents would
allow f
On 1/30/2012 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:08 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/30/2012 2:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
So kind of you to inform us of your unsupported opinion.
I was commenting on your unsupported opinion.
Except that my opinion is supported by the fact that within the
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Jan 28, 5:20 pm, Terren Suydam wrote:
> > I don't understand why you don't allow machine consciousness if in your
> > theory all forces give rise to sense.
>
> *Craig wrote*:
> Biological organisms are alive. They eat other living organi
On Jan 30, 5:16 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> Sure it did. If it had been equipped to express them they would have been
> something like,
> "This position feels good." "That position feels weak." etc. Not much
> range...but
> emotions nevertheless.
You seriously believe that? Wow. That make Santa C
On Jan 30, 6:08 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 1/30/2012 2:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> So kind of you to inform us of your unsupported opinion.
I was commenting on your unsupported opinion.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To p
On Jan 30, 12:03 am, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > I'm not talking about fluid flow,
>
> OK
>
> > I'm talking about simulating everything - potential and actual chemical
> > reactions, etc.
>
> OK
>
> > Water can be described by multiplying the known interac
On 1/30/2012 2:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 30, 5:16 pm, meekerdb wrote:
Sure it did. If it had been equipped to express them they would have been
something like,
"This position feels good." "That position feels weak." etc. Not much
range...but
emotions nevertheless.
You seriously
On Jan 30, 5:16 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> Sure it did. If it had been equipped to express them they would have been
> something like,
> "This position feels good." "That position feels weak." etc. Not much
> range...but
> emotions nevertheless.
You seriously believe that? Wow. That make Santa C
On Jan 30, 4:02 pm, Terren Suydam wrote:
> OK, great, we're on the same page.
>
> Now my next question is, why can't a synthetic organism (like one made
> of silicon that you have allowed may be alive, given the proper
> organization) have subjective experience?
I think it does have a subjective
On 1/30/2012 10:27 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
> Of course evolution can't 'see' intelligence either. As you say
selection can
only be based on action. But action takes emotion
OK I have no problem with that, but then Dee
On Jan 30, 1:27 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 meekerdb wrote:
>
> > Of course evolution can't 'see' intelligence either. As you say
> > selection can only be based on action. But action takes emotion
>
> OK I have no problem with that, but then Deep Blue had emotions way back in
On Jan 30, 12:47 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > I just understand that intelligence is an evolution of emotion,
>
> There is simply no logical way that could be true.
I think that it's a medical fact.
http://www.mta.org/eweb/docs/journal/2000
OK, great, we're on the same page.
Now my next question is, why can't a synthetic organism (like one made
of silicon that you have allowed may be alive, given the proper
organization) have subjective experience? Again with the usual
reminders that carbon-based and silicon-based life forms would b
On Jan 29, 10:34 pm, Terren Suydam wrote:
> So if in your theory life is explainable in terms of a "step from
> organic molecule to biological cell", then why is that one could not
> make a similar step from a synthetic (silicon, say) substrate to a
> synthetic cell? What is the difference?
Ther
On Jan 30, 5:09 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2012, at 03:20, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > How do you know that they 'occur' in the computations rather than in
> > the eye of the beholder of the computations?
>
> The beholder of the computations is supported by the computations.
> Those exis
On 30 Jan 2012, at 19:36, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Jan 2012, at 19:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/30/2012 9:47 AM, John Clark wrote:
> I just understand that intelligence is an evolution of emotion,
There is simply no logical way that could be true. However
important it may be to us Evolut
On 30 Jan 2012, at 19:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/30/2012 9:47 AM, John Clark wrote:
> I just understand that intelligence is an evolution of emotion,
There is simply no logical way that could be true. However
important it may be to us Evolution can not see emotion or
consciousness, Evolut
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 meekerdb wrote:
> Of course evolution can't 'see' intelligence either. As you say
> selection can only be based on action. But action takes emotion
>
OK I have no problem with that, but then Deep Blue had emotions way back in
1996 when it beat the best human Chess playe
On 1/30/2012 9:47 AM, John Clark wrote:
> I just understand that intelligence is an evolution of emotion,
There is simply no logical way that could be true. However important it may be to us
Evolution can not see emotion or consciousness, Evolution can only see actions, so
either emotion
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> I just understand that intelligence is an evolution of emotion,
>
There is simply no logical way that could be true. However important it may
be to us Evolution can not see emotion or consciousness, Evolution can only
see actions, so either
On 30 Jan 2012, at 00:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/29/2012 6:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
There is a huge amount of
evidence along these lines that consciousness does not in fact
supervene on the physical brain.
No, there is a huge number of anecdotes.
But it is proved in the comp theory.
B
On 29 Jan 2012, at 23:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/29/2012 7:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Math, even just arithmetic is already outside logic
Why exactly is that? Is it just because arithmetic has "..." in it,
i.e. it posits a potential infinity of operations?
Russell and Whitehead thought,
On 25 January 2012 19:46, meekerdb wrote:
> Note that the theories I mentioned do not assume a spacetime vacuum. One
> may say they assume a potentiality for a spacetime vacuum, but to deny even
> potential would be to deny that anything can exist.
>
But surely that denial is precisely the poi
On 29 Jan 2012, at 03:20, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 28, 8:03 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Jan 2012, at 02:33, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 27, 12:20 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But many things about numbers are not arithmetical. Arithmetical
truth
is not arithmetical. Machine's knowle
27 matches
Mail list logo
