Re: Virgin Birth

I'm glad you found it relevant. I was thinking in terms of a more physical basis for the mind-body problem. As regards my approach of trying to understand the scripture in terms of science, there are two primary reasons which drive my quest: 1) Quran claims repeatedly that it is explained in detai

Re: Violation of Bell inequality. Last big progress.

On 06 Oct 2015, at 00:00, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​​No, it does make Einstein wrong because Einstein detested non locality​ even more than he hated non determinism. ​ ​> ​But the experience here does not show the existence of physical non-locality, i

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 8:39:12 PM UTC+11, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 08:55:09PM -0700, Pierz wrote: > > > > Anyway it seems that if we're committed to computationalism plus Church > > thesis, then we have to consider the possibility that evolution may be a > >

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:25:57 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/31/2015 11:47 PM, Pierz wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:05 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/31/2015 8:55 PM, Pierz wrote: >> >> OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but here's a thought t

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 2/11/2015 4:53 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2015, at 01:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 30/10/2015 3:47 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Oct 2015, at 06:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/10/2015 9:37 am, Russell Standish wrote: The only clarification I would make is that (with computationalis

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > The computations are emulated in virtue of the truth of number > relationship, ​2+2=5 is a numerical relationship as is 2+2=4, the only way to segregate the ​ numerical ​ relationships that express a truth from the many that don't is

Re: Virgin Birth

On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 08:22:13AM -0800, PGC wrote: > > The questions are comp related. I don't know why you *wouldn't* find it > interesting as somebody who has written on duplication in comp context, > even if you don't buy Samiya's take. PGC > Samiya was referring to the well-known phenom

Re: The desert island amnesiac - a multiverse parable

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Pierz wrote: > > > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 11:20:32 PM UTC+11, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Pierz wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:01:08 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: On 10/30/2015

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 30 Oct 2015, at 01:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 30/10/2015 3:47 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Oct 2015, at 06:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/10/2015 9:37 am, Russell Standish wrote: The only clarification I would make is that (with computationalism) the system is formal, but the observer

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 31 Oct 2015, at 02:42, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/30/2015 11:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-10-30 19:20 GMT+01:00 Brent Meeker : On 10/30/2015 9:30 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-10-30 17:13 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux : 2015-10-30 17:01 GMT+01:00 John Clark : On Thu, Oct 29, 2

Re: Carroll's Paradox

On 30 Oct 2015, at 17:56, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: I'll try again... fooling myself again in believing you're honest here ​Oh dear, I feared that "bye" in your last post didn't mean much. ​ ​> ​So let's pretend our "AI" is in fact a Nintendo Entertai

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On 11/1/2015 12:59 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sunday, 1 November 2015, Pierz > wrote: OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but here's a thought that has intrigued me. Computationalism (and let's not worry for the time being about whether one

Re: The desert island amnesiac - a multiverse parable

On 30 Oct 2015, at 13:39, Pierz wrote: So imagine a guy washed up on a small desert island after a plane crash. Unfortunately during the plane crash he suffered a traumatic injury which caused him to completely lose his memory. He wakes up on the sure without the faintest clue about who he

Re: Virgin Birth

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 8:30:25 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote: > > And this is interesting because? Duplication can be seen as a kind of asexual reproduction. That we see biological phenomena related to this is perhaps not surprising, but removing what we may hold to be the "sexual

Re: Virgin Birth

On Sunday, 1 November 2015, Samiya Illias wrote: > For those interested in computationalism, and/or those with a Christian > background may find this interesting: > Virgin Birth > > *Abstract* > Virgin birth of Jesus is a matter of much debate. What we believe or not > is a matter of faith, and d

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 08:55:09PM -0700, Pierz wrote: > > Anyway it seems that if we're committed to computationalism plus Church > thesis, then we have to consider the possibility that evolution may be a > conscious process - indeed the onus should be on us to say why it *wouldn't* > be > co

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On Sunday, 1 November 2015, Pierz wrote: > OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but here's a thought that has > intrigued me. Computationalism (and let's not worry for the time being > about whether one buys Bruno's UDA) states that consciousness supervenes on > computation. This necesssarily

Re: Virgin Birth

And this is interesting because? On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:28:39AM +0500, Samiya Illias wrote: > For those interested in computationalism, and/or those with a Christian > background may find this interesting: > Virgin Birth > > *Abstract* > Virgin birth of Jesus is a matter of much debate. What

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

On 10/31/2015 11:47 PM, Pierz wrote: On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:05 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: On 10/31/2015 8:55 PM, Pierz wrote: OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but here's a thought that has intrigued me. Computationalism (and let's not worry for the time b