On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
> Huge abacuses are a really good way to look at this, although it's pretty
> much the same as the China Brain.
I hope you're not talking about Searle's Chinese room, the stupidest
thought experiment in history.
> > Your position is [...] The abacus
On 2/3/2012 1:50 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 03.02.2012 22:07 meekerdb said the following:
On 2/3/2012 12:23 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 02.02.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following:
On 2/2/2012 12:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:54 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/30/2012 3:14 PM, Craig
On Feb 3, 4:16 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > My entire point is that comp suggests that our visual qualia is not an
> > electronic light detector
>
> The visual cortex in your brain is not a light detector and the image
> compression program connected to
On Feb 3, 11:22 am, John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> > > An abacus is a computer. Left to it's own devices it's just a rectangle
> > of wood and bamboo or whatever.
>
> That is true so although it certainly needs to be huge we can't just make
> our very very b
On 03.02.2012 22:07 meekerdb said the following:
On 2/3/2012 12:23 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 02.02.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following:
On 2/2/2012 12:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:54 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/30/2012 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:08 pm, meeke
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
> My entire point is that comp suggests that our visual qualia is not an
> electronic light detector
The visual cortex in your brain is not a light detector and the image
compression program connected to the camera on your cellphone is not a
light dete
On 2/3/2012 12:23 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 02.02.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following:
On 2/2/2012 12:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:54 pm, meekerdb wrote:
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 w
On 02.02.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following:
On 2/2/2012 12:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:54 pm, meekerdb wrote:
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 uns
On 02.02.2012 22:35 Russell Standish said the following:
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 09:17:41PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 29.01.2012 23:06 Russell Standish said the following:
Absolutely! But at zero kelvin, the information storage capacity
of the device is precisely zero, so cooling only wo
On 02.02.2012 22:18 Russell Standish said the following:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 07:45:53PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 01.02.2012 21:51 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 2/1/2012 3:10 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
First the thermodynamic entropy is not context depended. This
must mean th
On Thu, Feb 2, 10:49 pm, Terren Suydam
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > There is an important difference though. You are using the
> > conventional notion of 'forces' like 'laws' which govern interaction
> > rather than what I am talking about which is sense and
On 03.02.2012 00:14 Jason Resch said the following:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi
wrote:
On 21.01.2012 22:03 Evgenii Rudnyi said the following:
On 21.01.2012 21:01 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/21/2012 11:23 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 21.01.2012 20:00 meekerdb said
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > An abacus is a computer. Left to it's own devices it's just a rectangle
> of wood and bamboo or whatever.
That is true so although it certainly needs to be huge we can't just make
our very very big abacuses even bigger and expect them to be intell
On Feb 3, 8:34 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 2012/2/3 Craig Weinberg
>
> > Do you say the same of Dennett's many examples of optical illusions?
> > Why does he use those if his view of the universe (comp), says that
> > 'what you see is what you see.'?
>
> Because comp is the theory saying that *
2012/2/3 Craig Weinberg
> On Feb 3, 8:01 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> .
> >
> > No that's not what comp predict. Comp predict that what you see is what
> you
> > see.
>
> Oh, comp predicts direct perception and not indirect representational
> quaia? Do tell.
>
>
> > Comp is the computation theor
On Feb 3, 8:01 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
.
>
> No that's not what comp predict. Comp predict that what you see is what you
> see.
Oh, comp predicts direct perception and not indirect representational
quaia? Do tell.
> Comp is the computation theory of mind. If you start assuming stupid
> thing
On Feb 2, 4:33 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > Do you have any examples of an intelligent organism which evolved without
> > emotion?
>
> Intelligence is not possible without emotion,
That's what I'm saying. Are you suddenly switching to my argument?
> b
On Feb 2, 4:05 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > My view is that the whole idea that there can be a 'functional equivalent
> > of emotions' is completely unsupported. I give examples of puppets
>
> A puppet needs a puppeteer, a computer does not.
Yes it does
2012/2/3 Craig Weinberg
> On Feb 1, 11:06 am, John Clark wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >
> > acw wrote:
> > >> A digital or analog camera would get similar amounts of noise as the
> > >> eye, actually probably less than the eye.
> >
> > > > Why do you say that? Have
On Feb 1, 11:06 am, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> acw wrote:
> >> A digital or analog camera would get similar amounts of noise as the
> >> eye, actually probably less than the eye.
>
> > > Why do you say that? Have you ever taken a photo with the lens cap o
20 matches
Mail list logo
