Re: ​Movie argument

On 5/20/2017 9:56 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 8:30 PM, David Nyman >wrote: ​> ​ 2+2=4 is a tautology of arithmetic; IOW it merely expresses something that is formally necessitated in the very definition of the terms. What does it

Re: ​Movie argument

Where do you get such nonsense...and why do you repeat it. U.S. schools are all different because they are run by local school boards. My mother taught in a two-room Texas county school where the students were told to leave their guns outside the door. Brent On 5/20/2017 10:14 PM, spudboy1

Re: Answers to David 4

On 5/25/2017 8:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Also, "my" theory is believed by almost all scientists. Diderot call it simply "rationalism". If Brent does not believe in mechanism, he should tell us what is his explanation for consciousness. But here, he clearly dismiss the problem when saying th

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

2017, at 12:29 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/25/2017 6:30 PM, Pierz wrote: Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often thought about how, according to special relativity, you can translate time into space and vice versa, and therefore how from a different perspective

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 5/25/2017 8:36 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote: Is something up with Everything List - your reply is not on the site and I’m seeing this business with “reply to David 4” etc…? On 26 May 2017, at 12:29 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/25/2017 6:30 PM, Pierz wrote: Recently I've been stu

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

o all" button is missing. I’ll reply to your remarks on the list if you post it there... On 31 May 2017, at 1:05 pm, Brent Meeker wrote: On 5/30/2017 7:30 PM, Pierz wrote: Thanks for these clarifications Bruce. I find your explanations to be very lucid and helpful - they also conf

“Could a Quantum Computer Have Subjective Experience?”

Here Scott Aaronson addresses the "pretty-hard problem of consciousness" http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1951 His idea of "participation in the Arrow of Time" is a narrower and more technical version of my idea that consciousness only exists in the context of an environment in which it ca

Dennett's compatibilism

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/compatibilism -- 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

Deutsch's multiverses

Here's Alastair Rae's review of Deutsch's book "The Beginning of Infinity". Rae notes that the basis problem seems to bring back the Heisenberg cut problem in a different form. He mentions Deutsch's idea which is popularly used to describe a quantum computer as being massively parallel. /De

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

6/13/2017 4:11 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: The reason why it would follow is precisely the point of my rhetorical question above. If you take the wave function seriously, then you take seriously that qubits really do exist in a superposition of states, and this explains the exponential increase in

Re: AI

On 6/17/2017 2:53 PM, John Clark wrote: A recent survey was conducted by the University of Oxford of 352 prominent AI researchers , this is the average prediction on when they think AI will outperform humans at var ​​ ious ​ tasks: Translate languages better than humans = 2024 Write high s

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 6/18/2017 3:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: No, but it does mean that a quantum computer can have the computational power of a lot of Turing machines acting in parallel, and it is normal to ask "why?", and be unsatisfied with a theory that does not answer this question. I have come across an i

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

On 6/19/2017 2:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So back to quantum computation: what I think that QC demonstrates (independently of it being realised by network models or cluster states) is that the superposition of states really does mean that the various states *exist*. Superposition of states j

Re: AI

Better put your tinfoil hat back on. The voices are getting to you. On 6/19/2017 1:00 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Ah! I believe we haven't argued for a long time. Here's the deal, on dumbness or smartness, it remains to be seen, as Forest Gump might conclude. On the other hand wh

Re: AI

On 6/19/2017 4:58 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: It's not Don's brains, who has more than either of us, Don's brains have more what? Stupid ideas...I'd agree with that. it's the opposition. You guys, the antifa (see spot riot, see spot shoot!). There was now an announcement at t

Re: AI

ybe that's because you have no "team". Brent Sent from AOL Mobile Mail -Original Message- From: Brent Meeker To: spudboy100 via Everything List Sent: Mon, Jun 19, 2017 08:26 PM Subject: Re: AI On 6/19/2017 4:58 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: It&#x

Re: AI

Understandable from a wimp who won't even put his real name in the kitchen. Brent On 6/19/2017 10:24 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: And all I did originally, was to respond the insertion, by yourself, of doing a jibe at Don, when blathering about AI. But its true what Harry Truman s

Re: AI and social destabilization

On 6/20/2017 1:10 PM, John Clark wrote: Jobs are already being lost because of the improvements in AI and it's not just unskilled workers that are in trouble. Don't think that because you're so smart a AI could never do your job better than you can so the AI revolution can't effect you person

Re: “Could a Quantum Computer Have Subjective Experience?”

On 6/24/2017 11:25 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 24/06/2017 8:36 pm, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 06:29:54PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 24/06/2017 5:23 pm, Russell Standish wrote: OK, it was possibly the case that you gave arguments earlier in the book. But I was going o

Re: What lead to free-will denial?

;corrected" measurement. The problem with operational definitions is that they may be susceptible to changing conditions. Some conditions are mentioned such as "ground state", "0 K" but the operational length of a meter may end up being affected by causes that we are

Re: Lawrence Krauss Should Have Paid Attention to Vic

/the-absurd/chaos-makes-the-multiverse-unnecessary Please pass them on to whoever would be interested in them. All the best, Noson *From:*Brent Meeker [mailto:meeke...@verizon.net] *Sent:* Monday, July 10, 2017 4:48 PM *To:* spinozalens via Free Thinkers Physics Discussion Group ; no...@sci.broo

Fwd: Re: Lawrence Krauss Should Have Paid Attention to Vic

in it. Brent On 7/11/2017 1:26 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Brent, Which book by Vic would you recommend one to read first? Cheers, Telmo. On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: Interesting essay. When I was helping edit Vic's books I made a similar argument too him - tha

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 7/14/2017 7:22 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I think Brent has commented that consciousness needs a world to be conscious of -- that doesn't, of itself, constrain that world in any way. Even more so if the consciousness is a product of evolution in that world. Evolution cannot produce anything

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 7/15/2017 1:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We, the universal machines, are distributed in an infinity of (arithmetical) computations below our substitution level on which our First Person experience is undetermined, and the laws to predict the observable must be given by a statistic on all co

Re: Wallace on non-locality

On 7/15/2017 4:48 AM, David Nyman wrote: ​I'm not sure I follow your logic here. The point I was making is ​that "the physical world, with all its complexity" looks highly constrained, something that is indeed widely noted - a put up job, to quote Fred Hoyle. It has further been noted that su

Aristotle

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/518697/ Maybe now Bruno will stop trashing Aristotle. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails f

Re: A profound lack of profundity

Instead about haggling about the use of personal pronouns; why not just stipulate to the point of the example, i.e. that in Everett's MWI first person indeterminancy produces the appearance of randomness even though the physics is deterministic. Brent On 7/23/2017 6:53 AM, John Clark wrote: O

It from gBit

Existence of an information unit as a postulate of quantum theory Lluis Masanes, Markus P. Mueller, Remigiusz Augusiak, David Perez-Garcia (Submitted on 2 Aug 2012 (v1), last revised 22 Oct 2013 (this version, v2)) Does information play a significant role in the foundations of physics? Informat

Re: R: Re: A profound lack of profundity

I didn't read it either because it wanted access to all my contacts. But Shan Gao has a number of papers on arXiv.org. He has some peculiar ideas about QM. Brent On 8/13/2017 12:30 AM, 'scerir' via Everything List wrote: First person, second person, and third person are basically grammati

Fwd: Re: A profound lack of profundity

On 8/12/2017 3:58 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: You try to help John C., but you contradict his "theory" (which is indeed based on the 1p/3p confusion). I suggest that the whole of step 3 is based on a 1p/3p confusion. If the duplicated subject does not have 3p knowledge of the protocol, he will

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On 8/14/2017 1:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Aug 2017, at 21:38, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/12/2017 3:58 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: You try to help John C., but you contradict his "theory" (which is indeed based on the 1p/3p confusion). I suggest that the whole of step 3 is

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On 8/14/2017 6:12 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 at 10:31 pm, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: On 14/08/2017 4:20 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 at 3:08 pm, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On 8/14/2017 10:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If after a rat has been duplicated the 2 rats then have different experiences, such as one getting a electric shock and one not getting one, then they will no longer be identical and will behave ​differently in the future. I see no indeterminacy or

Re: A profound lack of profundity

On 8/14/2017 10:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Aug 2017, at 18:25, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/14/2017 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Aug 2017, at 21:25, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/13/2017 10:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Aug 2017, at 19:06, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/13

Fwd: P vs NP result?

Forwarded Message Whoa. Anyone have opinions on this? https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.03486.pdf "A Solution of the P versus NP Problem" Norbert Blum Institut f¨ur Informatik, Universit¨at Bonn Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 144, D-53113 Bonn, Germany email: b...@cs.uni-bonn.de August

Re: Is math real?

On 8/20/2017 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Aug 2017, at 17:24, David Nyman wrote: On 20 Aug 2017 2:46 p.m., "Bruno Marchal" > wrote: On 19 Aug 2017, at 01:21, David Nyman wrote: On 18 August 2017 at 18:13, Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>

Re: Is math real?

On 8/20/2017 4:02 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 20 Aug 2017 23:16, "Brent Meeker" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 8/20/2017 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Aug 2017, at 17:24, David Nyman wrote: On 20 Aug 2017 2:46 p.m., "Bruno Marchal&q

Re: Is math real?

On 8/21/2017 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The problem with everythingism is that one doesn't experience everything. Indeed. But that is a very general problem, and you could say "the problem with physicalism is that we don't experience primary matter, nor the whole physical reality. But

Re: Is math real?

On 8/21/2017 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Before Gödel, most mathematician, like Hilbert, were hoping that with the finite and the symbolic we could justify the consistency of the use of the infinities, but after Gödel we know that even with the infinities we cannot circumscribe and justify

Re: Is math real?

On 8/21/2017 4:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Aug 2017, at 01:21, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/20/2017 4:02 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 20 Aug 2017 23:16, "Brent Meeker" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 8/20/2017 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20

Re: Is math real?

On 8/21/2017 5:43 AM, Philip Benjamin wrote: [*Philip Benjamin*] There is a difference between mathematical proposition and mathematical operation. For example, quantum theory is a mathematical proposition It includes more than mathematical propositions.  It includes interpretations of

Re: Is math real?

On 8/22/2017 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 8/21/2017 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The problem with everythingism is that one doesn't experience everything. Indeed. But that is a very general problem, and you could say "the problem with physicalism is that we don't experience primary mat

Re: Is math real?

On 8/23/2017 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not someone proposing any new theory. I am someone showing that the current materialist metaphysics just can't work with the Mechanist hypothesis. Refresh my understanding.  What it the mechanist hyposthesis?  Is it the same as computationalis

Re: Is math real?

On 8/24/2017 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Aug 2017, at 20:43, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/23/2017 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not someone proposing any new theory. I am someone showing that the current materialist metaphysics just can't work with the Mechanist hypot

Re: Is math real?

On 8/25/2017 9:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2017, at 20:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/24/2017 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Aug 2017, at 20:43, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/23/2017 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not someone proposing any new theory. I am someone

Re: Is math real?

On 8/27/2017 10:50 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 25 August 2017 at 21:51, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 8/25/2017 9:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2017, at 20:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/24/2017 1:20 AM, Bruno Marc

Re: Is math real?

On 8/27/2017 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think it is more pleasing when you can build the virtuous circle of explanations out of simple ideas that we hardly doubt at the start, like 2 * 12 = 24. And then, the point is that we have to do that, when we take Mechanism seriously enough. We

Re: Is math real?

On 8/28/2017 3:47 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 28 August 2017 at 01:49, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 8/27/2017 9:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think it is more pleasing when you can build the virtuous circle of explanations out of sim

Re: Is math real?

On 8/28/2017 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Aug 2017, at 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/27/2017 10:50 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 25 August 2017 at 21:51, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 8/25/2017 9:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24

Re: Is math real?

On 8/31/2017 2:20 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 29 Aug 2017 04:39, "Brent Meeker" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 8/28/2017 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Aug 2017, at 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote: On 8/27/2017 10:50 AM, David Nyman wrote:

Re: Is math real?

On 9/1/2017 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This leaves, as Bruno says, lots of white rabbits. That leaves us in the position of showing that there is no white rabbits or, to refute computationalism by showing there are still white rabbits, and then you can try to invent some matter or god ab

Re: Is math real?

On 9/1/2017 1:15 AM, David Nyman wrote: Mechanism makes no assumptions about physics other than that *some* consistent physics must be deeply implicated in the Bp and p relation. The observation that the physics we actually observe is rather tightly constrained seems to imply

Re: Is math real?

On 9/3/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Sep 2017, at 19:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/1/2017 1:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: This leaves, as Bruno says, lots of white rabbits. That leaves us in the position of showing that there is no white rabbits or, to refute computationalism

Re: Is math real?

On 9/3/2017 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 September 2017 at 17:46, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 9/3/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Sep 2017, at 19:57, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/1/2017 1:03 AM, Bruno Marc

Re: Do Observer Moments form a Vecor Space?

On 9/3/2017 8:23 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 12:28:26PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 29/08/2017 3:17 pm, Russell Standish wrote: I attach a brief PDF of what I have so far. It shows how observer moments, modelled as sets of bitstrings classified by looking at a finit

Re: Is math real?

On 9/4/2017 12:05 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 4 Sep 2017 12:27 a.m., "Brent Meeker" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 9/3/2017 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 September 2017 at 17:46, Brent Meeker mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: O

Re: Is math real?

On 9/4/2017 4:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Your argument is 100% the same as saying "It seems to me that the very possibility of computation depends on God". If God or Matter plays a role in a computation, then you are not taking the word "computation" in its standard meaning (cf Church-Turi

Re: infinite computations

AS I understand it, it is because he identifies beliefs with provable propositions.  The UD proves the same propositions infinitely many times in infinitely many different threads. Brent On 9/4/2017 5:47 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: A question for Bruno (and anyone who wants to chime in, of cours

Re: Is math real?

On 9/4/2017 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Sep 2017, at 01:27, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/3/2017 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 3 September 2017 at 17:46, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 9/3/2017 7:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Sep

Re: Do Observer Moments form a Vecor Space?

On 9/4/2017 2:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:13:56PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: The whole point of the the bitstrings is that they are interpreted by something we call an observer. In the usual Comp Sci setup, there is a reference universal Turing machine, but when

Re: Is math real?

On 9/4/2017 12:54 PM, smitra wrote: Reply to everyone. What we experience is not the physical world but a simulation of it by our brain. So, even if we assume that there exists a "primary" physical world, we're not really living in one, we're at most living in a World that's simulated insid

Re: Is math real?

On 9/5/2017 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is not a metaphor. When you say "yes" to the surgeon, he will not replace your brain by a metaphor, but by a digital machine. Then we use the math of self-reference to study what a digital machine can prove and not prove about itself, and the 8 d

Re: Is math real?

On 9/6/2017 7:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Some physicists can be immaterialist, but still believe that the fundamental reality is physical, a bit like Tegmark who remains (despite he is willing to think differently) open to the idea that the physical reality is a special mathematical structur

Re: Do Observer Moments form a Vecor Space?

On 9/8/2017 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think Brent's point, with which I agree BTW, is that an observer can only be defined in relation to an external world -- consciousness requires a world to be conscious of! Why? That seems magical thinking (in the frame of Digital Mechanism). You

Re: Do Observer Moments form a Vecor Space?

On 9/9/2017 1:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Sep 2017, at 22:38, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/8/2017 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think Brent's point, with which I agree BTW, is that an observer can only be defined in relation to an external world -- consciousness requires a wor

Re: Is math real?

On 9/10/2017 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So I assume elementary arithmetic; I prove the existence of the universal number(s), then I define a notion of rational belief "scientific belief", (Plotinus discursive reasoner) by Gödel's (sigma_1 arithmetical) beweisbar Bp. That makes sense, due

Re: Is math real?

On 9/11/2017 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/10/2017 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So I assume elementary arithmetic; I prove the existence of the universal number(s), then I define a notion of rational belief "scientific b

Re: Is math real?

On 9/13/2017 4:06 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Sep 2017 6:21 p.m., "Brent Meeker" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 9/11/2017 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/10/2017 10:24 AM,

Re: Is math real?

On 9/13/2017 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Sep 2017, at 19:21, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/11/2017 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/10/2017 10:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So I assume elementary arithmetic; I prove the existence of

Re: Is math real?

On 9/13/2017 4:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Sep 2017, at 13:06, David Nyman wrote: On 11 Sep 2017 6:21 p.m., "Brent Meeker" <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 9/11/2017 1:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Sep 2017, at 22:25,

Re: math and the treal world

On 9/14/2017 5:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Sep 2017, at 13:22, ronaldheld wrote: This should cause some discussion. Maybe belongs in the "is math real" thread, but that one is large??    Ronald What is your opinion? The author believes that PI does not existed 100,000 y

Re: math and the treal world

On 9/15/2017 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Sep 2017, at 14:39, ronaldheld wrote: On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 8:01:16 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Sep 2017, at 13:22, ronaldheld wrote: This should cause some discussion. Maybe belongs in the "is math rea

Re: Infinities

On 9/25/2017 6:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Sep 2017, at 21:02, smitra wrote: On 23-09-2017 10:34, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Sep 2017, at 13:47, David Nyman wrote: https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicians-measure-infinities-find-theyre-equal-20170912/ [1] A rare progress on t

Re: Andrei Linde on consciousness

Interesting interview (I wonder where it was...CERN?).  Linde makes leap though from the Hamiltonian of the universe is zero to we need consciosness to explain change.  He considers having an instrument record events, but then he says he must become conscious of the recording.  That doesn't fol

Re: Hoffman on Consciousness

It's a dishonest obfuscation.  Of course you are constructing a model of reality.  So what?  Because the model building mechanism was evolved and can be fooled doesn't mean it's not a model OF reality.  When he looks at a tomato and thinks, "That's a tomato." it's a true thought, unlike say, "T

Re: Will computationalism be refuted?

I've only read the abstract, but it appears that they are assuming spacial overlap causes collapse, which would go along with some thing gravity based.  But in fact measurements also collapse to eigenstates of energy or momentum. Brent On 9/27/2017 2:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi, Here is

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

On 10/4/2017 12:44 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Stathis, On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:42 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 8:11 am, Telmo Menezes wrote: I think this is quite interesting, although the article is a bit superficial. https://aeon.co/ideas/when-you-split-the-bra

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

On 10/4/2017 5:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: It depends on what you mean by serious research. The work of well-known hypnotherapists like Milton Erickson has indeed been extensively studied and the phenomena demonstrated to a fair extent duplicated fairly reliably. There seems to be a great deal

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

On 10/4/2017 7:01 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: In this case the pronoun problems can be resolved by dint of the fact that the language processing areas of the brain are largely localized to one half. It's an interesting question to me whether the non-linguistic half, when separated, is self-aware

Re: Maudlin's Computation and Consciousness

On 10/9/2017 6:29 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 5 October 2017 at 16:06, Bruno Marchal > wrote: On 05 Oct 2017, at 16:02, David Nyman wrote: On 5 October 2017 at 13:50, Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: On 02 Oct 2017, at 15:07, David Ny

Re: Self-taught, 'superhuman' AI now even smarter

It's impressive and I can imagine using a learning module like this to do something like navigate a Mars Rover.  But what makes most real-world problems different is that there's no simple, clear-cut win/lose value.  It might be that human and animal intelligence evolved like this, with differe

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

The problem is that, like most real problems, improving computer code has no simple one-dimensional measure of "better".  Go games are won or lost. Brent On 10/20/2017 6:46 PM, John Clark wrote: Google reports in the current issue of the journal Nature that it has a new greatly improved Go pr

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

An interesting point.  But then the question is which is it better to have good intuition or good intelligence.  Intelligence as self-consciousness in a typical alpha-beta game program would give explanations like "I projected all possible moves ahead for six steps and evaluated the positions a

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 10/25/2017 5:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not entirely sure of this. I think that in the long term, the free-market can work, both for preserving resource and happiness. We might have a different feelings due to the fact that it does not seem to have work with us, but the reason is that

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 10/26/2017 6:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/25/2017 5:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not entirely sure of this. I think that in the long term, the free-market can work, both for preserving resource and happiness. We might have a

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 10/26/2017 7:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Oct 2017, at 21:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/25/2017 5:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not entirely sure of this. I think that in the long term, the free-market can work, both for preserving resource and happiness. We might have a

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 10/26/2017 12:51 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>wrote: ​> ​ Are you claiming, without evidence, that cannabis is cheaper and safer than all other pain killers? ​I don't know about Bruno but I

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 10/27/2017 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The "Schedule One" notion does not make sense: to forbid research on something because it would be dangerous. Why not forbid research in guns, bombs, or car, plane train, I meant, except cannabis, what is not dangerous? Did you know that the U.S.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 10/27/2017 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Then the discovery that THC (cannabis main cannabinoid, the psycho-tropic one) shrink cerebral rumor of mice was dismissed and stopped, and remain largely ignored. It is a total inhuman shame! I looked at that paper.  It was statistically bogus.

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 10/27/2017 9:30 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>wrote: ​> ​ There are a lot of other painkillers But ​ ​ marijuana ​ ​ is the only painkiller I know of that has a 0% chance of death by overdose, a

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 10/29/2017 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Oct 2017, at 21:04, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/27/2017 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Then the discovery that THC (cannabis main cannabinoid, the psycho-tropic one) shrink cerebral rumor of mice was dismissed and stopped, and remain

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 10/30/2017 9:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2017, at 07:15, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/29/2017 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Oct 2017, at 21:04, Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/27/2017 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Then the discovery that THC (cannabis main cannabinoid

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 11/1/2017 8:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Even if cannabis did not have any medical use, the papers showing its danger have all been shown to be gross frauds, all the times. It's dangers have been exaggerated, but there are dangers as with alcohol, tobacco, and other things.  My wife's fir

Re: An AI program that teaches itself

On 11/4/2017 3:32 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/1/2017 8:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Even if cannabis did not have any medical use, the papers showing its danger have all been shown to be gross frauds, all the times. It's dangers

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

It would make it possible to use EPR like experiments to send signals faster than light...which is to say backward in time.  That would pretty much screw up all known physics...and common sense. Brent On 11/9/2017 7:43 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: If the measurement problem were solved in

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

The "measurement problem" isn't necessarily finding a deterministic subquantum dynamics.  If you could show that the density matrix becomes strictly diagonal in some non-arbitrary way (i.e. described by dynamics) and the eigenvalues obey the Born rule (which I think would follow from Gleason's

Re: flat vs asymptotically flat universe

Cosmologist think the universe is spatially flat.  That just means triangles have interior angles summing to 180deg.  It doesn't have anything to do with extent.  But the universe is not flat in spacetime; it's expanding and at an increasing rate. Brent On 11/9/2017 3:10 PM, agrayson2...@gmai

Re: Consistency of Postulates of QM

M, Alan Grayson wrote: How would you define "the measurement problem" to conclude that strictly diagonalizing the density matrix would be a solution? TIA On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: The "measurement problem" i

Re: flat vs asymptotically flat universe

easured by triangulation. It's measured by comparing the spatial spectrum of the CMB variations to model predictions with different mass densities. https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0004404 Brent On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

Re: flat vs asymptotically flat universe

On 11/9/2017 8:55 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 8:00:45 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 11/9/2017 6:23 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: The difference between spatially flat and asymptotically flat for a huge universe would be virtually impossible to dist

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >