On 6/30/2015 9:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 07:08:39PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/30/2015 6:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:10:06AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/30/2015 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. No problem with this. But my interest
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Jun 2015, at 01:27, Bruce Kellett wrote:
My main thrust all along has been to test the various logical weak
points in Bruno's argument,
Thanks for the rethorical tricks to remind us that you have fail to find
any flaw.
The flaws are that you use rhetorical tricks
Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 07:14:29PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Jun 2015, at 01:27, Bruce Kellett wrote:
My conclusion is that, overall, his arguments do not entail the
conclusions he seeks to draw.
So yes, I seek to defeat his 'proofs', not necessarily to prove
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 07:08:39PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> On 6/30/2015 6:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:10:06AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> >>On 6/30/2015 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>>OK. No problem with this. But my interest are in consciousness and
> >>>qualia,
On 6/30/2015 6:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:10:06AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/30/2015 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. No problem with this. But my interest are in consciousness and
qualia, and the advantage of computer science is that it can
handles the compute
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:10:06AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
> On 6/30/2015 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> >OK. No problem with this. But my interest are in consciousness and
> >qualia, and the advantage of computer science is that it can
> >handles the computer's truth that the computer cannot
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 07:14:29PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 30 Jun 2015, at 01:27, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
>
> >
> >My conclusion is that, overall, his arguments do not entail the
> >conclusions he seeks to draw.
>
>
> >So yes, I seek to defeat his 'proofs', not necessarily to prove
>
On 30 Jun 2015, at 17:59, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Terren Suydam > wrote:
> Whether post-duplication-machine or post-many-worlds-
duplication, "I" refers to the person having a subjective experience.
OK.
> Post duplication, we both agree that the persons d
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:43 PM, John Clark wrote:
> Terren Suydam
>
> *> What is it like to be a person going through a duplication
>> experience? *
>>
>
> I know from experience that you expect one and only one answer to that
> question but such a answer does not exist.
>
> >
>>
>> I
On 6/30/2015 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is what unitary evolution means. As I said:
>> This means that physics is completely computable -- Turing emulable.
>> But that is what quantum mechanics in the Everettian interpretation
>> tells us. Unitary evolution preserves (quantum) informati
On 30 Jun 2015, at 18:13, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote:
> I must admit that I have become frustrated by Bruno's
habit of arguing that because I do not have an alternative, fully
worked out theory, his theory must be correct ("the only game
On 30 Jun 2015, at 01:46, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Jun 2015, at 12:27, Bruce Kellett wrote:
This then gives the entire universe. The computation may be
repeated many times, but by the identity of indiscernibles, those
repetitions are just the same universe.
Assuming
Terren Suydam
*> What is it like to be a person going through a duplication experience?
> *
>
I know from experience that you expect one and only one answer to that
question but such a answer does not exist.
>
>
> I'd be interested to hear your take on exactly that... what would it be
Le 30 juin 2015 19:28, "Terren Suydam" a écrit :
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:59 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Terren Suydam
wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>> Whether post-duplication-machine or post-many-worlds-duplication, "I"
refers to the person having a subjective
On 30 Jun 2015, at 01:27, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/29/2015 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On which view? That is true for []p, but false for []p & <>t.
Are you saying that it is true that all provable propositions are
not sufficiently coherent to instantiate a consciousness
On 29 Jun 2015, at 19:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/29/2015 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Jun 2015, at 12:27, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Jun 2015, at 01:37, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Jun 2015, at 04:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:59 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Terren Suydam
> wrote:
>
> >
>> Whether post-duplication-machine or post-many-worlds-duplication, "I"
>> refers to the person having a subjective experience.
>>
>
> OK.
>
>
>
>> >
>> Post duplication
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
>
>
> I
> must admit that I have become frustrated by Bruno's habit of arguing that
> because I do not have an alternative, fully worked out theory, his theory
> must be correct ("the only game in town" argument!).
Yes, it's silly to p
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Terren Suydam
wrote:
>
> Whether post-duplication-machine or post-many-worlds-duplication, "I"
> refers to the person having a subjective experience.
>
OK.
> >
> Post duplication, we both agree that the persons diverge in either
> scenario. So there ar
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 Samiya Illias wrote:
>
> Scriptural records, mythology and archeological evidence together indicate
> that this is not the first time that humans have technologically advanced -
> rather ancient human civilisations were far mightier.
>
Scriptural records
and
mythology
20 matches
Mail list logo
