On 25 Sep 2012, at 19:03, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:43:29 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Sep 2012, at 05:45, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com
wrote:
Pain is anything but epiphenomenal. The
On 25 Sep 2012, at 19:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:02:05 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Sep 2012, at 18:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, September 24, 2012 5:13:11 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Sep 2012, at 20:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On 26 Sep 2012, at 00:30, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/25/2012 8:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
I don't deny that a computer can optimize itself,
but I deny that the operation is autonomous,
meaning independent, for ultimately it is software
dependent, using a program written
On 26 Sep 2012, at 06:38, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal
Do you believe that a computer has a physical mind
that can be conscious ?
My personal beliefs are private.
With comp a computer
Hi Bruno Marchal
I'm still trying to digest it, but Leibniz' principles that
a) every explanation is a cause,
and
b) every substance can be causative
and
c) every substance is alive (and presumably intelligent)
Allow the possibility of computers being conscious.
And alive. And
All these phisicalists considerations are extremely interesting, but we can
not fall in the temptation to consider them an exhaustive notions of
untimate Truth. These considerations take phenomenons as things occurring
in the external reality, when really perceptions happens in the mind. In
the
Hi Roger Clough,
Hi Bruno Marchal
I'm still trying to digest it, but Leibniz' principles that
a) every explanation is a cause,
and
b) every substance can be causative
and
c) every substance is alive (and presumably intelligent)
Allow the possibility of computers being conscious.
And
On 9/26/2012 4:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Isn't the self 1p ? not sure.
The self is 1p, by definition.
Hmm The self obtained by the Dx = xx method is entirely 3p, and
is the one usually denoted by Gödel's predicate: Bp.
To get the 1p, we connect it to truth, which makes sense as
On 9/26/2012 6:45 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
All these phisicalists considerations are extremely interesting, but
we can not fall in the temptation to consider them an exhaustive
notions of untimate Truth. These considerations take phenomenons as
things occurring in the external reality,
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:19:40 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/25/2012 12:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
No process or substance, function or form is remotely a substitute for
consciousness.
Well that will be a greatly relief to those engineers producing
aritificial
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no information literally in the wire.
Then why are you wasting your money paying for internet service, if its
not information then what do you call it, what are you getting for your
money?
I'm getting conduits
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you neatly cut the top of a candle flame off would you expect to be
able to repair it?
Yes.
Have you even read a single account of cellular memory? Here are 10
http://www.paulpearsall.com/info/press/3.html
And so now we
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:27:43 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Cells may not be only machines though, they are also self-organizing
life
experiences. They have mechanistic characteristics as
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 11:45:08 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
There is no information literally in the wire.
Then why are you wasting your money paying for internet service, if
its not information then
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:04:03 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
If you neatly cut the top of a candle flame off would you expect to be
able to repair it?
Yes.
Now we know that you are delusional.
On 9/25/2012 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Yes, and these micro-branches are effectively classical because the system is entangled
with a large number of environmental degrees of freedom. Still, you can't identify a
conscious observer with a particular micro-branch, you need to consider a
On 9/25/2012 9:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 11:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2012 8:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 10:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2012 4:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Yes. If we cannot prove that
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:47:26 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Sep 2012, at 19:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:02:05 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Sep 2012, at 18:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, September 24, 2012 5:13:11 AM
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:45:09 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Sep 2012, at 19:03, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:43:29 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Sep 2012, at 05:45, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Jason
On 9/26/2012 3:45 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
All these phisicalists considerations are extremely interesting, but we can not fall in
the temptation to consider them an exhaustive notions of untimate Truth. These
considerations take phenomenons as things occurring in the external reality, when
But mind can agree also in things that are not phisical. and these things
are much more important for life. Almost all the higuer concepts that we
manage in daily life are non material. We are now talking about existence
and truth for example, that upto my knowledge are not material. These non
On Sep 26, 2012, at 12:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2012 9:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 11:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2012 8:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 10:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 2:35:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
An interesting paper which comports with my idea that the problem of
consciousness will be solved by engineering. Or John Clark's point that
consciousness is easy, intelligence is hard.
Consciousness is easy if you already
On 9/26/2012 11:27 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
But mind can agree also in things that are not phisical. and these things are much more
important for life. Almost all the higuer concepts that we manage in daily life are non
material.
People agree on particular statements being true
On 9/26/2012 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 26, 2012, at 12:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2012 9:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 11:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2012 8:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 10:27
On 9/26/2012 12:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 2:35:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
An interesting paper which comports with my idea that the problem of
consciousness
will be solved by engineering. Or John Clark's point that consciousness
is easy,
Saw this paper making the rounds and reblogged it:
Synchronous Firing and Its Influence on the Brain’s Electromagnetic Field
Evidence for an Electromagnetic Field Theory of Consciousness
http://www3.surrey.ac.uk/qe/pdfs/cemi_theory_paper.pdf
A step in the right direction I think, although
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:37:09 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/26/2012 12:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 2:35:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
An interesting paper which comports with my idea that the problem of
consciousness will be solved by
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2012 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 26, 2012, at 12:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2012 9:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 11:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 9/26/2012 2:53 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2012 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 26, 2012, at 12:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Sep 2012, at 06:38, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 25, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal
Do you believe that a computer has a physical mind
that can be
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 5:01 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2012 2:53 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2012 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 26, 2012, at 12:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Metabolism involves replacing parts of cells that break down with
inanimate matter from the environment. The cells may or may not have
experiences associated with them but apparently this process preserves
the
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
If it has no causal efficacy, what causes someone to talk about the pain
they are experiencing? Is it all coincidental?
There is a sequence of physical events from the application of the
painful stimulus to the subject
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
If it has no causal efficacy, what causes someone to talk about the pain
they are experiencing? Is it all coincidental?
There is a
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 8:30:33 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Metabolism involves replacing parts of cells that break down with
inanimate matter from the environment. The cells may or may not
On 9/26/2012 11:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
stath...@gmail.com mailto:stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
If it has no causal efficacy,
On 9/27/2012 12:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The problem is the assumption that they can only be one thing if they
aren't the other. This kind of dualism is a prejudice of a particular
phase of scientific development that is overdue for reconciliation. By
framing it as 'understandable vs
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is the assumption that they can only be one thing if they aren't
the other. This kind of dualism is a prejudice of a particular phase of
scientific development that is overdue for reconciliation. By
On 9/27/2012 12:19 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is the assumption that they can only be one thing if they aren't
the other. This kind of dualism is a prejudice of a particular phase of
scientific
On 9/26/2012 9:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/27/2012 12:19 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is the assumption that they can only be one thing if they aren't
the other. This kind of dualism is a
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Craig is pointing out that functions are not separable in the real
world. Nature does not build things in a gears and spring method, every part
of a cell is an integral part of a whole. If we are to replicate the
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/26/2012 11:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
stath...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
If it has no
On 9/27/2012 12:39 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Craig is pointing out that functions are not separable in the real
world. Nature does not build things in a gears and spring method, every part
of a cell is an
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:27:43 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:20 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
Cells may not be only machines though, they are also self-organizing
45 matches
Mail list logo
