On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 May 2014, at 16:12, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 10 May 2014, at 12:12, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, LizR
Hi,
Climate change. Funny video on a real problem with debate (not just on
climate change)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Comp isn't really a theory, so testing it is a bit problematic. It's just
a logical argument which purports to show the consequences of taking
seriously the idea that brains are Turing emulable.
Why do you think it can't be shown that
http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comics_en/rat-park/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this
Thanks Liz, thanks Richard. I guess the problem is local.
Best,
Bruno
On 14 May 2014, at 00:42, LizR wrote:
Links 2 and 3 appear to work OK for me. (I will be watching the
whole thing at some point...)
On 14 May 2014 03:27, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
All 3 links worked for
I assume you would agree that a photon is self-propelled. Protons and alpha
particles are also self-propelled. They are sel-propelled by their own
internal coulomb forces. Electrons, protons, atomic nuclei and atoms are all
perpetual motion machines.
John R.
From:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
Under Daniel Kolak's open
individualismhttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism there
exists one numerically distinct person who is everyone at all times. What I
want to explore is the implications of this
On 14 May 2014, at 03:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/13/2014 6:11 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 May 2014 11:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/13/2014 4:06 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 May 2014 06:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/12/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Turing *emulation* is
Not bad!
That shows morphism might help for people in cages or feel in cage.
It is just crazy to make a medication illegal, unless you want to
build an underground economical power.
Bruno
PS sorry for the delays, problem with the server or provider ...
On 14 May 2014, at 15:22, Telmo
On 14 May 2014, at 09:36, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 12 May 2014, at 16:12, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 10 May 2014, at 12:12, Telmo Menezes
But that's exactly the point. Consciousness, if construed as the container
of conscious experience (or the surface upon which experience is
written) has no principle of individuation--all conscious experiencers
abstracted from their experience are identical. For this reason a
consciousness swap is
An interesting little thought experiment to consider: Is there a way to
create a program or AI moneybot which can figure out how to make more money
on the internet than it costs?
I see this as a sneaky way to get at the trans-computable nature of
consciousness as it brings up issues about
On 5/14/2014 11:03 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com
mailto:do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
Under Daniel Kolak's open individualism
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism there exists one
numerically
Craig: about your title...
I see no 'realistic' meaning to SINGULARITY (although it may be calculated
in many fashions by diverse experts...!)
Taking a STRICT meaning of the term, it has NOTING. Not even borderlines,
which would belong INTO (forbidden). So the only singularity I can fathom
is the
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 4:10:11 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:
Craig: about your title...
I see no 'realistic' meaning to SINGULARITY (although it may be calculated
in many fashions by diverse experts...!)
Taking a STRICT meaning of the term, it has NOTING. Not even borderlines,
which would
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:31:17 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 May 2014, at 03:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/13/2014 6:11 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 May 2014 11:15, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript: wrote:
On 5/13/2014 4:06 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 May 2014 06:29, meekerdb
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:25:09 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Comp isn't really a theory, so testing it is a bit problematic. It's
just a logical argument which purports to show the consequences of taking
seriously the
I would rather find a logically coherent reason to keep my dollars under
open individualism, Brent. Something deep inside me recoils at the
conclusion. But the only other coherent story of subjective expectation is
the no-self theory, which undermines so much of my value system that I'd
rather
On 15 May 2014 06:03, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
Under Daniel Kolak's open
individualismhttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism there
exists one numerically distinct person who is everyone
Speech is silver, silence is gold. Self is universe. Please excuse
interruption, crossing in mist.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
On 15 May 2014 04:59, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
I assume you would agree that a photon is self-propelled. Protons and
alpha particles are also self-propelled. They are sel-propelled by their
own internal coulomb forces. Electrons, protons, atomic nuclei and atoms
are all
On Thursday, May 15, 2014, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:25:09 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote:
Comp isn't really a theory, so testing it is a bit problematic. It's
just a logical argument which
On 14 May 2014, at 03:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm showing that authenticity can be empirically demonstrated, and
that the failure of logic to detect the significance of authenticity
can be empirically demonstrated, but that neither authenticity or
the failure of logic to detect it can
On 14 May 2014, at 06:05, Dennis Ochei wrote:
Under Daniel Kolak's open individualism there exists one numerically
distinct person who is everyone at all times. What I want to explore
is the implications of this theory for a self interested individual.
For those unfamiliar with Open
On 14 May 2014, at 03:52, LizR wrote:
On 14 May 2014 13:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/13/2014 6:11 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 May 2014 11:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/13/2014 4:06 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 May 2014 06:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On
On 13 May 2014, at 17:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/13/2014 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The result of the computation does not change depending on when I
started it, who started it and so on.
Peter Jones would say that it does matter. There are diophantine
equation which emulate you in our
On 14 May 2014, at 01:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/13/2014 4:06 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 May 2014 06:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/12/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Turing *emulation* is only meaningful in the context of emulating
one part relative to another part that is not
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 09:59:45AM -0700, John Ross wrote:
I assume you would agree that a photon is self-propelled.
No. What does that even mean?
Protons and alpha particles are also self-propelled. They are sel-propelled
by their own internal coulomb forces. Electrons, protons, atomic
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 09:47:35AM -0700, John Ross wrote:
Attached is the section of my book that describes the structure of the alpha
particle.
John R.
As Liz said, there's no detail or explanation here. We know that
Coulomb forces follow the inverse square law, right? I really don't
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 03:22:10PM +0200, Telmo Menezes wrote:
http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comics_en/rat-park/
Sorry - I had to give up reading this. The images are too small to read the
writing, and the navigation between opening an image in a separate
window and going back to the navigation
That's odd. I found it easy to read (the size of the images adjusted to
fill my browser window, so if it was too small I could expand the window)
and my mouse wheel scrolled the images sideways with no problem. I just
followed the link, read the first few panels, then scrolled sideways to
read the
G*, G, arithmetical hypostases, PA, ZF?
I must not know the lingo round here
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 May 2014, at 06:05, Dennis Ochei wrote:
Under Daniel Kolak's open
individualismhttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism there
On 15 May 2014 14:26, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
G*, G, arithmetical hypostases, PA, ZF?
PA is Peano Arithmetic and ZF is Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory.
(Whatever they are!)
Just to prove I've managed to learn *something* while I've been here.
--
You received this message
I figured PA was either Peano or Presburger Arithmetic. I'm used to seeing
ZFC but not ZF by itself. The other three are total mysteries to me
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 May 2014 14:26, Dennis Ochei
Looks like you're already way ahead of me. Anyway, no doubt Bruno will
explain.
On 15 May 2014 14:50, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
I figured PA was either Peano or Presburger Arithmetic. I'm used to seeing
ZFC but not ZF by itself. The other three are total mysteries to me
On 15 May 2014 07:12, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 May 2014 06:03, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
Under Daniel Kolak's open
individualismhttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism there
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 01:51:06PM +1200, LizR wrote:
That's odd. I found it easy to read (the size of the images adjusted to
fill my browser window, so if it was too small I could expand the window)
and my mouse wheel scrolled the images sideways with no problem. I just
followed the link,
You can still care if you die normally but something like the swampman
thought experiment is just as good as ordinary survival under Parfit's
view, which a reductionist I feel is forced to accept. You care that you
keep experiencing but there is no self to be found that persists.
Destructive
On 15 May 2014 15:43, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
You can still care if you die normally but something like the swampman
thought experiment is just as good as ordinary survival under Parfit's
view, which a reductionist I feel is forced to accept. You care that you
keep
But then the identity relationship is no longer transitive...
Suppose a brave officer to have been flogged when a boy at school, for
robbing an orchard, to have taken a standard from the enemy in his first
campaign, and to have been made a general in advanced life: Suppose also,
which must be
Also would you bite the bullet that if i where to erase your personal
memories then torture your body it wouldnt count as torturing you?
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
But then the identity relationship is no longer transitive...
Suppose a brave
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 09:05:15PM -0700, Dennis Ochei wrote:
Under Daniel Kolak's open
individualismhttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism there
exists one numerically distinct person who is everyone at all times. What I
want to explore is the implications of this theory for
In this scenario you dont experience all possible experiences, only the
experiences that actually arise during the course of history
On Thursday, May 15, 2014, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 09:05:15PM -0700, Dennis Ochei wrote:
Under Daniel Kolak's
43 matches
Mail list logo
