Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:29:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 20 February 2014 09:24, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > >>> You're assuming that precise molecular assembly will necessarily yield > a > >>> coherent dynamic process, but

Re: How Wolves Change Rivers

On Friday, February 21, 2014 10:28:47 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 20 February 2014 22:00, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > I'm still unsure whether you don't grasp the relevance of my point, or are >>> consciously or unconsciously side-stepping it.

The Road to MSR: Philosophy of Mind Flowchart

http://multisenserealism.com/2014/02/20/philosophy-of-mind-flowchart/ The idea here is that if we want to take the full spectrum of phenomena into account, we have to either begin with a reductionist realism and work upw

Re: Wikipedia-size maths proof too big for humans to check

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:05:58 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > But is it possible to write program checking the proof (not finding it) ? > I guess it must be, because a proof, is just following rules... so it > should be possible to devise two independent different proof checker..

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:28:15 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, February 19, 2014, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:12:52 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >>> >>> On 18/02/20

Re: How Wolves Change Rivers

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:37:43 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 19 February 2014 17:15, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > >> On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:28:18 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: >> >>> On 19 February 2014 14:17, Craig Weinberg

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:45:19 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote: > > > > > > *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto: > everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of > *ghi...@gmail.com > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 18, 2014 2:02 PM > *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re:

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:46:40 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 19 Feb 2014, at 17:18, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On 18/02/2014, David Nyman wrote: > > >> I think if I say consciousness is an epiphenomenon of biochemistry I > >> should also say that life is. > > > > > >

Re: How Wolves Change Rivers

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:28:18 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 19 February 2014 14:17, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > You're talking about the special case of human experience, human bodies, >> etc. I'm talking about the ontology of the nature of

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:36:31 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 19 February 2014 16:18, Stathis Papaioannou > > wrote: > > I'm making a case for reductionism. If biochemistry necessarily leads to >> consciousness then I don't think this is any different to the situation >> where b

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:12:52 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 18/02/2014, Craig Weinberg > wrote: > > > The deficit is that it won't be alive. The parts won't integrate into a > > whole. Every examination will yield only more levels of where t

Re: How Wolves Change Rivers

On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 8:02:40 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 18 February 2014 17:14, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > Moreover, that very failure must be strikingly apparent to the functional >>> actors themselves. >>> >> >> Why do

Re: What are numbers? What is math?

On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 10:42:48 PM UTC-5, chris peck wrote: > > >>how can facts exist that are not grounded in observation at some point? > > Russell and Liz are wandering around the countryside and Liz points at the > ground and says: > > "there's a gold coin buried right there." > > Rus

Re: What are numbers? What is math?

On Monday, February 17, 2014 10:30:23 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 2/17/2014 7:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 06:32:35PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 2/17/2014 5:21 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > >>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 02:03:49PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: > >>>

Re: What are numbers? What is math?

On Monday, February 17, 2014 4:55:29 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > You and I share an intersubjective reality. Liz & I share another one, > that is almost, but not quite, the same. The rat and I share another > one, but it is rather different, and more basic. A being in a > complet

Re: How Wolves Change Rivers

On Monday, February 17, 2014 7:29:48 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 17 February 2014 03:19, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> >> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:07:06 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: >> >>> On 17 February 2014 00:29, Craig Weinberg wro

Re: What are numbers? What is math?

On Monday, February 17, 2014 8:33:48 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Russell, > > All of science assumes an external reality independent of human > observation. > Only for the last few centuries. Before that, natural philosophy was firmly grounded in the assumption of parallel-symmetric re

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Monday, February 17, 2014 12:44:43 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Sunday, February 16, 2014, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:45:13 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>&

Re: How Wolves Change Rivers

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:07:06 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 17 February 2014 00:29, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > You don't suggest that I can't understand comp, but you suggest that I am >> impervious to reasoned argument about it...why would th

Re: How Wolves Change Rivers

rstood? > David > On 16 Feb 2014 21:38, "Craig Weinberg" > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:09:13 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: >>> >>> On 16 February 2014 19:05, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> Why not

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 7:12:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 2/16/2014 11:34 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > On 16 February 2014 17:42, meekerdb >wrote: > > I don't disagree, but I think this formulation leaves "meaning" as >> mysterious and one may ask why consciousness creates meaning. I

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

ying to draw a second cartoonist. Craig > David > > > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:18:54 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: >> >> On 16 February 2014 17:48, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> Ah, but then you would be faced with the questions posed by the UDA/MWI >>&g

Re: What are numbers? What is math?

apse' to > the modern view of decoherence, in which we can say that it is the > interactions of two particles themselves which supply the generic > 'observation' of each other to produce some exact dimensional 'measurement' > in each other's frames

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:23:11 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Feb 2014, at 18:56, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:58:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Feb 2014, at 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >

Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?

literally there is no model, only a presentation of the relation of our own experience to others. Craig > > Edgar > > > > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:05:15 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 12:32:35 PM UTC

Re: How Wolves Change Rivers

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:05:09 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Feb 2014, at 18:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q > > A quick video that can shed some light on the inadequacy of bottom-up > models. > > >

Re: How Wolves Change Rivers

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:09:13 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 16 February 2014 19:05, Bruno Marchal >wrote: > > Why not being agnostic, especially that you have admitted not having >> studied computer science. >> >> Why being negative on something that you ignore? >> > > Because he "

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:18:54 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 16 February 2014 17:48, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > Ah, but then you would be faced with the questions posed by the UDA/MWI >>> arguments, because there would then be two conscious "o

Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?

#x27;t be the one to criticize technically. My objection is only that whatever primordial form or function can be conceived of as absolute must supervene on an even more primordial possibility of aesthetic appreciation and intentional participation. Craig > > > Edgar > > On Sunda

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:58:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Feb 2014, at 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:29:09 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Feb 2014, at 00:06, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:12:03 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 16 February 2014 14:06, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > If there were some way to copy a fully developed body so that it lived, it >> would still not be a copy of the original, but just a new origina

How Wolves Change Rivers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q A quick video that can shed some light on the inadequacy of bottom-up models. -- 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

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:45:13 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Sunday, February 16, 2014, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:49:56 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >>> >>> On 16 February 2014

Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:22:50 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Russell, > > No, the proper understanding is that gravitation and curved space are > EQUIVALENT. Both are produced by the presence of mass-energy (and stress). > I would say that gravity and curved space are metaphorical

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:29:09 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Feb 2014, at 00:06, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:43:29 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: >> >> On 15 February 2014 18:32, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>

Re: What are numbers? What is math?

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 12:35:59 AM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote: > > > On 16 Feb 2014, at 2:06 pm, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > > > On Friday, February 14, 2014 10:23:35 PM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote: >> >> >> >> On 15 Feb 2014, at 1:09 pm, mee

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:49:56 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 16 February 2014 01:32, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > > No, the copy of the experience has no belief or experience at all. The > > reflection of the fire doesn't burn anything. > >

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:40:17 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 16 February 2014 01:41, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > To extend your metaphor, in my view, since the characters in a drama can > > build an LCD screen as part of the show, but an LCD screen ca

Re: What are numbers? What is math?

On Friday, February 14, 2014 10:23:35 PM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote: > > > > On 15 Feb 2014, at 1:09 pm, meekerdb > > wrote: > > On 2/14/2014 4:24 PM, Kim Jones wrote: > > > On 14 Feb 2014, at 3:42 pm, Russell Standish > > > wrote: > > What about the CMBR? When it was created there were (presu

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Saturday, February 15, 2014 7:02:21 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: David Nyman > > Date: 15 February 2014 23:45 > Subject: RE: Better Than the Chinese Room > To: Craig Weinberg > > > > Can you give me

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Saturday, February 15, 2014 5:48:12 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 15 February 2014 18:32, Craig Weinberg >> > wrote: >> >> You can't copy awareness. Awareness is what is uncopyable, not just >>> because awareness is special, but because it i

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:43:29 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 15 February 2014 18:32, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > You can't copy awareness. Awareness is what is uncopyable, not just >> because awareness is special, but because it is ontologic

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

To extend your metaphor, in my view, since the characters in a drama can build an LCD screen as part of the show, but an LCD screen can't build a show as part of its function, it makes more sense that the drama is fundamental and that from an absolute perspective, it is the pixels which are the

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Friday, February 14, 2014 9:45:34 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > > > > On 13 February 2014 19:19, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:30:25 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 12 February 2014 23:47, Craig Weinberg

Re: What are numbers? What is math?

On Friday, February 14, 2014 5:19:01 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 14 February 2014 17:42, Russell Standish > > > wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 04:23:00PM +1300, LizR wrote: >> > On 14 February 2014 15:40, Russell Standish >> > > >> wrote: >> > >> > > > And it implies there was no reali

Re: What are numbers? What is math?

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:51:18 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Russell, > > But that assumes that consciousness is prior to ontological reality, to > actual being. That's one of the things I find most ridiculous about both > Bruno's comp and block universes, that they assume everythi

MSR Schema Diagram

-- 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.c

Re: What are numbers? What is math?

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:05:34 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:23:14AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Craig, > > > > I also suspect Bruno's math skills are superior to mine, but his > > understanding of the place of math in reality seems pretty defici

Re: What are numbers? What is math?

pute actual reality. > > It is in this sense that I stated that all actual R-numbers are all just > the identical R-bits which are just related and computed into all the > information that constitutes the universe. > > in this sense then everything can be said to be composed

Re: Nagel on Explanation

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:45:23 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 14 February 2014 00:07, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> >> I'm saying that the process can also stop by the inquisitor and the >> answerer both realizing that meaning, life, and aestheti

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:30:25 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 12 February 2014 23:47, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > >> > I don't think that my experience can be replaced with a copy though. > >> > >> So how would you know you wer

Re: Nagel on Explanation

On Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:10:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 12 February 2014 08:13, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> "Explanation, unlike causation is not just of an event but of an event > >> under a description. An explanation must show why i

Re: What are numbers? What is math?

putes the current state of the universe, at least > so far as I can see. > > Edgar > > > > On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:36:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >

Re: What are numbers? What is math?

On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:36:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:18:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 11 Feb 2014, at 19:58, Craig W

Re: Nagel on Explanation

On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 12:32:20 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Feb 2014, at 17:55, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:23:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:18, Craig W

Re: Nagel on Explanation

On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:23:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:18, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:19:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 11 Feb 2014, at 22:13, Craig Wei

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:26:51 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 12 February 2014 05:21, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, February 10, 2014 7:51:58 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > >> > >> On 11 February 2014 11:23, Craig We

Re: What are numbers? What is math?

On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:18:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 11 Feb 2014, at 19:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > Our internal experience is informed directly by opportunities for > quasi-veridical sensory entanglement from within, without, and beyond

Re: Nagel on Explanation

On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:19:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 11 Feb 2014, at 22:13, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > "Explanation, unlike causation is not just of an event but of an event >> under a description. An explanation must show why it was likely

Nagel on Explanation

> > "Explanation, unlike causation is not just of an event but of an event > under a description. An explanation must show why it was likely than an > event *of that type* occurred." - Thomas Nagel > This quote applies to my rejection of Comp since Comp does not explain why there is any such t

Re: What are numbers? What is math?

I think that the opposite of everything that you are saying makes more sense.: On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:07:07 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > > So the take away is that : > > 1. The universe, and everything in it, consists of information only. And > that information consists only of

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Monday, February 10, 2014 7:51:58 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 11 February 2014 11:23, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > >> Continuity and the idea that physical laws will be consistent in > >> different times and places are definitely assumptions. They

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Monday, February 10, 2014 3:51:59 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 10 February 2014 00:32, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > >> Strictly speaking everything is tentative and subject to revision in > the > >> light of new evidence, but some things

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Monday, February 10, 2014 11:36:53 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Bruno Marchal > > wrote: > > > > > We cannot detect it, nor can be detect intelligence. We can detect >> competence, relatively to a domain. >> > > Apparently you believe the distinction betwee

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Monday, February 10, 2014 1:55:12 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 9 February 2014 22:50, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > >> Neuroscientists assume that we think with our brains just as cardiac > >> physiologists assume the heart pumps blood around the b

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Monday, February 10, 2014 12:48:31 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 9 February 2014 22:40, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:27:57 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > >> > >> On 9 February 2014 15:11, Craig Wein

Re: Turing Reductio ad Absurdum

On Monday, February 10, 2014 4:45:19 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 09 Feb 2014, at 22:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:23:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 09 Feb 2014, at 12:35, Craig Weinberg wrote: &g

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

he exterior view of other animals. > > See my book for the full explanation of both... > Cool. Craig > Edgar > > On Sunday, February 9, 2014 6:50:18 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:28:09 AM UTC-5, stathisp wr

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

nce". Craig > Edgar > > On Saturday, February 8, 2014 11:10:03 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:55:43 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >>> >>> On 8 February 2014 05:03, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>>

Dark Matter and Energy: Ratios In Ignorance

"If Dark Matter and Dark Energy represents 96% of the “known” universe, even if it paradoxically turns out that we know virtually nothing about it, what other kinds of ratios-in-ignorance lurk as shockingly in our self-significant lives? There are 23% of Dark Matter and 73% of Dark Energy." -

Re: Turing Reductio ad Absurdum

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:23:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 09 Feb 2014, at 12:35, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Sunday, February 9, 2014 5:39:58 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 09 Feb 2014, at 05:25, Craig Weinberg wrote: &g

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 7:23:12 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Sunday, February 9, 2014, LizR > wrote: > >> On 9 February 2014 17:10, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >>> On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:55:43 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >>> >

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:28:09 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 9 February 2014 15:10, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > >> It's an assumption in science that the language difference is due to > >> brain difference. That's not to say that our techni

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:27:57 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 9 February 2014 15:11, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:47:26 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > >> > >> On 7 February 2014 07:47, Bruno Mar

Re: Turing Reductio ad Absurdum

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 5:39:58 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 09 Feb 2014, at 05:25, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > How do you know that you are really reading these words? > > > The question is ambiguous. If "really reading these words" refer to t

Turing Reductio ad Absurdum

How do you know that you are really reading these words? People misread things all the time. Maybe it just feels like you are reading them? You could be having a brain aneurism. Logically, there is no way to prove that you are reading these words right now. The fact that you might not really be

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:47:26 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 7 February 2014 07:47, Bruno Marchal > > wrote: > > >> Well, I *could* be a zombie and still say that, unless you consider > >> the idea of zombies contradictory (which maybe it is). > > > > > > I bet you are not a zombi

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:55:43 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 8 February 2014 05:03, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > If there were identical triplets, and one of them grew up on the other > side > > of the world and spoke a different language, while t

Lakoff and Arithmetic Origins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_Mathematics_Comes_From "Lakoff and Núñez's avowed purpose is to begin laying the foundations for a truly scientific understanding of mathematics, one grounded in processes common to all human cognition. They find that four distinct but related processes metaph

Re: Unput and Onput

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 3:31:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 07 Feb 2014, at 17:59, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Friday, February 7, 2014 11:52:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 06 Feb 2014, at 19:50, meekerdb wrote: &g

Re: Unput and Onput

On Friday, February 7, 2014 7:33:28 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 8 February 2014 07:48, Bruno Marchal >wrote: > >> >> On 06 Feb 2014, at 21:43, LizR wrote: >> >> Because Turing universality is a mathematical notion. >>> >>> It has nothing to do with physics. >>> >>> I must admit I was quite sur

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Friday, February 7, 2014 1:03:36 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Bruno Marchal > > wrote: > >> >> > Computation is 3p, and consciousness is 1p, and no 1p thing can be a 3p >> thing. >> > > Sure it can. There is no consistent definition of "p" so "3p" can be >

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

language (not by looking at trace compounds that would identify a geographic region, etc, but strictly by the vast number of different words and phrases that they use)? On Friday, February 7, 2014 12:39:06 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Craig Weinberg >

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Friday, February 7, 2014 12:39:06 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > > it impossible to make a brain replacement that is 100% functional. >> > > If so then right now your brain is not 100%

Re: Unput and Onput

On Friday, February 7, 2014 11:52:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 06 Feb 2014, at 19:50, meekerdb wrote: > > On 2/6/2014 8:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Yes. But it is not a back and forth. It just happen that when machine > looks inward, and "stay honest" with herself, she canno

Re: Unput and Onput

On Thursday, February 6, 2014 11:22:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 05 Feb 2014, at 20:29, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:53:56 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 05 Feb 2014, at 13:49, Craig Weinberg wrot

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Thursday, February 6, 2014 11:00:27 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 05 Feb 2014, at 19:49, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:39:47 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 05 Feb 2014, at 14:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Thursday, February 6, 2014 3:59:45 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 5 February 2014 23:55, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:57:43 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > >> > >> On 5 February 2014 13:46, Craig Wei

Re: Films I think people on this forum might like

On Monday, February 3, 2014 4:45:47 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > Liz, > > Great recommendations, and excellent topic idea. > > The Prestige is the movie that got me interested in these topics and led > me to this list. Also, for US viewers, Chronochrimes goes by "Timecrimes" > and is available u

Re: Unput and Onput

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:53:56 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 05 Feb 2014, at 13:49, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:37:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:07, Craig Weinberg w

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:39:47 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 05 Feb 2014, at 14:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:54:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:20, Craig Weinberg wrote: > >

Art That Reminds Me to Say No to the Doctor

more http://rollership.tumblr.com/post/75567004763 -- You received this message because you are

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:54:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:20, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 11:54:26 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 04 Feb 2014, at 12:46, Stathis Papaioannou w

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:57:43 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 5 February 2014 13:46, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 8:38:31 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > >> > >> On 5 February 2014 01:31, Craig Wei

Re: Unput and Onput

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:37:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > Numbers can be derived from sensible physics > > > That is a claim often done, but nobody has ever succeed without assuming > Turing

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 8:38:31 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 5 February 2014 01:31, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > >> As per my answer to David: if you could show that a physical > >> phenomenon of a particular type necessarily leads to consciousness

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 6:06:32 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 5 February 2014 06:36, meekerdb >wrote: > >> On 2/4/2014 12:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> But I don't believe that. I think that consciousness is a necessary >> aspect of intelligence, >> >> OK. >> and that is function

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 6:00:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 23:44, Bruno Marchal >wrote: > >> On 04 Feb 2014, at 01:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> It's because you're stuck on the idea that consciousness is something >> >> ex

Re: Unput and Onput

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 4:37:11 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 20:20, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> >> On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:56:05 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: >> >>> On 4 February 2014 18:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:31:36 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 04 Feb 2014, at 15:33, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 3:57:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 03 Feb 2014, at 21:25, Craig Weinberg wrote: &g

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