Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

2018-01-04 6:57 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett : > My abacus does not talk to me. > > That would mean no computation are conscious at all... technically your abacus is turing complete (well it has to be large enough), so it could run a conscious computation... but that

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

My abacus does not talk to me. Bruce On 29/12/2017 3:49 pm, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: ​ > ​ not all computations are conscious. ​ How do you know?​ ​ John K

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On 1/3/2018 7:49 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 8:34:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 1/3/2018 6:00 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 3:43:14 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 1/3/2018 8:44 AM,

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/2/2018 6:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Jan 2018, at 23:38, Brent Meeker wrote: No. I do not commit the fallacy of "Your god is false, so my god is real".  I'm willing to say I don't know what must be real. You just did it. You just said in your previews post: " I think

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 8:34:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/3/2018 6:00 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 3:43:14 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/3/2018 8:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> That program has been revealed to be

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On 1/3/2018 6:00 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 3:43:14 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 1/3/2018 8:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: That program has been revealed to be the child of Harry Reid, Senator from Nevada. At the request of

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 4:45:21 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/3/2018 10:00 AM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:21 PM, wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 6:36:56 PM UTC-7, Zachary Smith wrote: >> >> >>> ​>> ​ >>> **EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 3:02:25 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 11:33:04 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Lawrence Crowell < >> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> ​> ​ >>> We may in fact be little more

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 3:43:14 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/3/2018 8:44 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > That program has been revealed to be the child of Harry Reid, Senator from >> Nevada. At the request of Bigelow, who is advancing the idea of big >> inflated habitable

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 6:50:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/3/2018 2:02 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > Finding absolutely no life elsewhere in the universe might in some ways be > useful and interesting in itself. > > > Proving a negative over an infinite field sounds like a

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On 1/3/2018 2:02 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: Finding absolutely no life elsewhere in the universe might in some ways be useful and interesting in itself. Proving a negative over an infinite field sounds like a fools errand. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:31 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​> ​ > It doesn't have to be a disaster. It might just be that the lesson of > relativity becomes widely appreciated, that the universe is large and the > speed limit is low. > To a super civilization one von ​ Neumann

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 5:31:41 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/3/2018 9:33 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > >> ​> ​ >> We may in fact be little more than a vast almost infinitely improbable >>

Re: incompleteness in quantum gravity

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 5:42:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/3/2018 9:33 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > I have been working on an aspect of quantum gravitation with respect to > the ergodic and information theoretic structure of curves in hyperbolic > spaces. These hyperbolic

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On 1/3/2018 10:00 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:21 PM, > wrote: On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 6:36:56 PM UTC-7, Zachary Smith wrote: ​>> ​ **EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE IS THE LEAST SCIENTIFIC/CREDIBLE

Re: incompleteness in quantum gravity

On 1/3/2018 9:33 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: I have been working on an aspect of quantum gravitation with respect to the ergodic and information theoretic structure of curves in hyperbolic spaces. These hyperbolic spaces are the spatial component of the AdS_3 these spacetimes are Poincare

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On 1/3/2018 9:33 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Lawrence Crowell >wrote: ​> ​ We may in fact be little more than a vast almost infinitely improbable fluke

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On 1/3/2018 8:44 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: That program has been revealed to be the child of Harry Reid, Senator from Nevada. At the request of Bigelow, who is advancing the idea of big inflated habitable modules in space, this program germinated. Bigelow is interested

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 1/3/2018 6:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Jan 2018, at 19:01, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Bruno Marchal >wrote:

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 11:33:04 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > >> ​> ​ >> We may in fact be little more than a vast almost infinitely improbable >> fluke

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/3/2018 5:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Jan 2018, at 03:39, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/2/2018 8:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Now, it could be that intelligent behavior implies mind, but as you yourself argue, we don't know that. Isn't this at the crux of the scientific study of

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 10:33:04 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > >> ​> ​ >> We may in fact be little more than a vast almost infinitely improbable >> fluke

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 11:00:51 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:21 PM, wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 6:36:56 PM UTC-7, Zachary Smith wrote: >> >> >>> ​>> ​ >>> **EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE IS THE LEAST SCIENTIFIC/CREDIBLE EVIDENCE

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 1/3/2018 5:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Dec 2017, at 01:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/12/2017 10:14 am, Russell Standish wrote: This is computationalism - the idea that our human consciousness _is_ a computation (and nothing but a computation). What distinguishes a conscious

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:21 PM, wrote: On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 6:36:56 PM UTC-7, Zachary Smith wrote: > > >> ​>> ​ >> **EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE IS THE LEAST SCIENTIFIC/CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THERE >> IS. >> > > ​> ​ > Brilliant. Incredibly brilliant. Thank you. AG > ​I

incompleteness in quantum gravity

I have been working on an aspect of quantum gravitation with respect to the ergodic and information theoretic structure of curves in hyperbolic spaces. These hyperbolic spaces are the spatial component of the AdS_3 these spacetimes are Poincare disks that foliate the three dimensional

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: > ​> ​ > We may in fact be little more than a vast almost infinitely improbable > fluke . > ​There is a excellent talk on that very subject at :​

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 8:28:18 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 8:54:53 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 7:21:40 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, January 2,

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 8:54:53 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 7:21:40 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 6:36:56 PM UTC-7, Zachary Smith wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

https://xkcd.com/1235/ On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:54 PM, wrote: > > > On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 7:21:40 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 6:36:56 PM UTC-7, Zachary Smith wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, December 31, 2017

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 7:21:40 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 6:36:56 PM UTC-7, Zachary Smith wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 8:12:51 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 01 Jan 2018, at 20:44, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/1/2018 5:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12/31/2017 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If you find an empirical quantum tautology violated by Z1*, or X1*, or S4Grz1, There's no such thing as an empirical tautology...that's why I said it's

Re: Dreamless Sleep?

On 01 Jan 2018, at 19:01, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: https://www.sciencealert.com/your-consciousness-does-not-switch-off-during-a-dreamless-sleep-say-scientists ​> ​Wonderful! ​I found nothing wonderful in it, ​ ​I thought

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 03 Jan 2018, at 03:39, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/2/2018 8:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Now, it could be that intelligent behavior implies mind, but as you yourself argue, we don't know that. Isn't this at the crux of the scientific study of the mind? There seemed to be universal

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

On 29 Dec 2017, at 01:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/12/2017 10:14 am, Russell Standish wrote: This is computationalism - the idea that our human consciousness _is_ a computation (and nothing but a computation). What distinguishes a conscious computation within the class of all