On Friday, September 28, 2012 12:56:23 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
But you don't need a living cell to transmit a signal.
Yes, so there is nothing unique about biology.
That is my point. Why have a cell
On Friday, September 28, 2012 2:44:32 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/27/2012 11:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Are you saying that you expect replacing someone's brain would be no
more problematic than replacing any other body part?
Craig
Hi Craig,
I kinda have
On Friday, September 28, 2012 11:36:36 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:10:37 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Craig Weinberg whats
On Friday, September 28, 2012 11:56:07 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
You are contradicting yourself. 1) Nothing special about biology 2)
Evolution is utterly helpless to create 'complex things' until it stumbled
on biology
On Saturday, September 29, 2012 2:14:34 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
The spark plugs don't fire in response to the will of the driver, the
brain
does. This isn't magic, this is the ordinary process
On Saturday, September 29, 2012 2:42:56 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
The principle is not the same. You cannot get a head transplant and
assume
that the 'you'-ness is going to magically follow
On Saturday, September 29, 2012 1:41:25 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
But
leaving that obvious fact aside, the other obvious fact is that
evolution has used organic chemistry to make self-replicators
On Saturday, September 29, 2012 10:49:47 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Saturday, September 29, 2012 1:41:25 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
On Saturday, September 29, 2012 9:42:52 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
What test do you use to determine if it is still you after a certain
procedure?
You do half of the procedure, then walk
On Sunday, September 30, 2012 10:55:34 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Roger Clough
rcl...@verizon.netjavascript:
wrote:
Only life evolves, and steel claws, being made of steel, are not alive,
at least in the ordinary sense (Leibniz believed that
On Sunday, September 30, 2012 6:19:15 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
OK, so you put in the brain implant, switch it in and out of circuit
without telling the subject which is which, and ask them how
On Sunday, September 30, 2012 3:45:56 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/30/2012 2:03 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/30/2012 3:18 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I don't doubt that initial experiments would not yield ideal results.
Neural prostheses would initially be used for people
On Sunday, September 30, 2012 1:43:16 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
It's not enough to assert that evolutionary designs (teleonomy) and
rational designs (teleology) are different, I am asking you
On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:36:24 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I don't doubt that initial experiments would not yield ideal results.
Neural prostheses would initially be used for people
On Sunday, September 30, 2012 8:02:55 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/30/2012 4:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You aren't seeing my point that if human designers are nothing but evolved
systems, then they must have the same limitations as evolution itself,
unless you can explain why
On Monday, October 1, 2012 11:08:44 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You're suggesting that even if one implant works as well as the
original, multiple implants would not. Is there a critical replacement
On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:52:29 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
The difference is Evolution doesn't understand the concept of one step
backward 2 steps forward for one thing, I went into considerable
On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:03:38 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You're not really answering the question. The neural implants are
refined to the point where thousands of people are walking around
On Monday, October 1, 2012 8:09:53 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
But if the implants worked as implants without experiences the person
would behave as if everything were fine while internally
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 1:48:39 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
I don't understand the question because I'm not clear on what these
differences refers to.
The differences between evolutionary nature (teleonomy
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 5:28:47 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Bruno and all,
I have not infrequently brought up the need for a self
in your models. Why do you need to include a self or 1p
in your models ?
There are two ways of looking at something:
a) the objective material, which is
On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 12:35:11 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
how can reason be completely different from evolution if reason itself
is a consequence of nothing but evolution.
Random mutation can wire
On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 11:56:59 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
1) I understand and respect your argument here 100%.
2) I think that I have a better explanation
The better explanation
On Thursday, October 4, 2012 3:18:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
When you say Random mutation can wire together a small number of cells
such that if there is a sudden change in the light levels
On Thursday, October 4, 2012 6:55:47 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 11:56:59 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Craig Weinberg whats
On Friday, October 5, 2012 7:05:06 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
So it is reasonable to define life as that which can produce order
out of chaos *. Since at least higher living beings
also possess consciousness, my grand hypothesis is that
life = consciousness = awareness = producing order
On Friday, October 5, 2012 12:58:14 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
To paraphrase Carl, 'First, you have to invent the universe.'
You want to know why there is something rather than nothing and Science
can't provide
On Saturday, October 6, 2012 1:56:33 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I'm openly saying that a high school kid can make a robot that behaves
sensibly with just a few transistors.
Only because he
On Monday, October 8, 2012 3:06:42 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/7 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
On Saturday, October 6, 2012 1:56:33 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm openly saying
On Monday, October 8, 2012 3:14:36 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On 08/10/2012, at 3:07 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Absolutely not. We know no such thing. Quite the opposite, we know with
relative certainty that what we understand of physics provides
On Sunday, October 7, 2012 8:58:53 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Roger Clough
rcl...@verizon.netjavascript:
wrote:
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
I know that, but his theory of electromagnetism is a physical theory,
even if it's hard to pin down the extension
Have a look at the first few minutes of this show with conjoined twins Abby
and Brittany:
http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/tv/abby-and-brittany/videos/big-moves.htm
You can see that although they do not share the same brain they clearly
share aspects of the same mind. They often speak in unison
On Monday, October 8, 2012 11:42:02 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
We know with absolute certainty that the laws of physics in this
universe allow for the creation of consciousness, we may not know how they
do it but we know
, or in the stratosphere
somewhere.
Craig
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Have a look at the first few minutes of this show with conjoined twins
Abby
and Brittany:
http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/tv/abby-and-brittany/videos/big-moves.htm
On Monday, October 8, 2012 1:35:31 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 8:42 AM, John Clark wrote:
2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective experience, in
which case there is no reason for Evolution to produce consciousness and I
have no explanation for why I am here,
On Monday, October 8, 2012 2:19:56 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 10:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
So the more stimulation you get through your senses of the outside
environment the less conscious you become. Huh?
Stimulation that you get thorough your senses of the outside
Deutsch is right. Searle is right. Genuine AGI can only come when thoughts
are driven by feeling and will rather than programmatic logic. It's a
fundamental misunderstanding to assume that feeling can be generated by
equipment which is incapable of caring about itself. Without personal
On Monday, October 8, 2012 3:38:42 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 11:25 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 2:19:56 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 10:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
So the more stimulation you get through your senses of the outside
If the universe were a simulation, would the constant speed of light
correspond to the clock speed driving the simulation? In other words, the
“CPU speed?”
As we are “inside” the simulation, all attempts to measure the speed of the
simulation appear as a constant value.
Light
On Monday, October 8, 2012 4:57:08 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 1:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 3:38:42 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 11:25 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 2:19:56 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012
On Monday, October 8, 2012 5:19:03 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 2:10 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 4:57:08 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 1:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 3:38:42 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012
On Monday, October 8, 2012 5:51:56 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Well, if it's not the laws of physics then it's something supernatural,
isn't it?
Not unless you assume that physics is complete
Shades of things to come. What happens when we plug the economy of the
entire world into mindless machines programmed to go to war against numbers.
*Mysterious Algorithm Was 4% of Trading Activity Last Week*
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49333454
A single mysterious computer program that placed
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 6:38:24 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
They can only disagree about experiences that are spoken.
You mean they can only verbally disagree. It is pretty clear that they can
disagree about their taste in things without having spoken about them
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 6:32:19 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
The subjective aspect (Firstness), some of which apparently each twin has,
is
not shareable, only descriptions of it (Thirdness) are shareable.
Maybe not in these twins, but in these other, brain
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 10:17:41 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Consciousness is when you bet in your consistency, or in a reality, to
help yourself.
Consciousness precedes language, but follows perception and sensation.
Nice. It can be tricky because perception and sensation can
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:21:59 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, which computers do you think have conscious experiences? Windows
laptops? Deep Blue? Cable TV boxes?
How the hell should I know if computers have conscious
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:04:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If the universe were a simulation, would the constant speed of light
correspond to the clock speed driving the simulation? In other words, the
“CPU speed?”
As we
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 10:09:57 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think Brittany and Abby are two single individual persons.
I do too, but we can see that there is much more behavioral synchronization
that we would expect from two single individual persons.
Then there are the
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 8:51:50 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
Roger,
To say that a connection is based on logic is a category error.
More specifically,
I conjecture that the connection in the brain between the physical brain
and the (computational?) mind/monads is based on BEC
NDEs make sense to me in my model. With personal consciousness as a subset
of super-personal consciousness, it stands to reason that the personal
event of one's own death would or could be a super-signifiying presentation
in the native language of one's person (or super-person).
Craig
--
You
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
Craig,
I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the
substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if
consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then
the two
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:27:14 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Oct 2012, at 19:27, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 10:09:57 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think Brittany and Abby are two single individual persons.
I do too
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:14:44 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Oct 2012, at 19:03, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:04:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If the universe were a simulation, would
the other?
Craig
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
Craig,
I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the
substance of the mind
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:27:52 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.10.2012 17:16 Craig Weinberg said the following:
http://s33light.org/post/33296583824
Have a look. Objections? Suggestions?
I am not sure if vitalism is a model of consciousness.
Yeah, this is more
that.
Craig
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:52:30 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
Craig,
Neurons are made in accordance with physical laws.
You are confusing string theory with comp which
10, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 7:46:17 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
I disagree with everything you suggest.
You are welcome to disagree, but without knowing why, I can only assume
that
you don't
are not
the ones living there?
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 7:46:17 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
I disagree with everything you suggest.
You are welcome to disagree, but without knowing why
.
But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary.
The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that.
Names are not important.
Richard
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:03:15 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
Roger: So neither space and time nor spacetime
physically exist.
Richard: That is unscientific. Physics could be entirely wrong.
But I will bet on physics being correct and you and Craig being incorrect.
But you are
agree with why my conjecture is wrong.
Craig
I will stick with the conventional definition of space and time.
Richard
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:03:15 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 9:14:25 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
A whole man has a monad called, let's say, John Doe.
In this case I would call 'having a monad', 'being a person' who identifies
with the name John Doe (and I would say that the name define or influences
that they are
us and our experiences of our lives.
Craig
Enough preaching,
Richard
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:26:03 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
Craig,
I think Roger has an incorrect
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:08:16 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The problem is the meanwhile you have this meta-universe which is doing
the computing, yes? What does it run on?
On the true number relations.
Indirectly on some false propositions too, as the meta-arithmetic,
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:41:29 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
Brent,
According to Einstein it takes massive objects to warp spacetime.
Therefore a warped spacetime cannot be empty.
Sure it can. What is mass? A relation between objects. Relativity shows us
nothing if not that. Earth
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:23:48 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
Nobody said it was empty. I was just correcting your misconception that
spacetime had to
be flat in the absence of matter.
I'm saying that it is beyond empty. It is only the inferred distance
between which objects define
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:05:23 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
Consciousness is easy if you already have consciousness. It is
impossible if you don't.
But you believe in panexperientialism, you believe
They are certainly cool looking and biomorphic. The question I have is, at
what point do they begin to have experiences...or do you think that those
blobs have experiences already?
Would it give them more of a human experience if an oscillating
smiley-face/frowny-face algorithm were added
On Friday, October 12, 2012 8:15:42 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi John Clark
IMHO everything that happens happens for a reason.
The reason can be physical or IMHO mental.
Ok, but why are there any 'reasons' to begin with? If there can be reasons
which did not exist before, then
On Friday, October 12, 2012 10:23:57 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Oct 2012, at 14:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
They are certainly cool looking and biomorphic. The question I have
is, at what point do they begin to have experiences...or do you
think that those blobs have
On Friday, October 12, 2012 4:42:56 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 05:50:11AM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
They are certainly cool looking and biomorphic. The question I have is,
at
what point do they begin to have experiences...or do you think that
those
Well, local community TV anyways.
Jose is a great host, producer, and editor though.
Consciousness, Materialist Zombies and Multisense Realism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv8KrsRnx44
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 7:41:10 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 02:11:59PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 12, 2012 4:42:56 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
Assuming this system exhibits universality like the original GoL
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 7:54:44 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au javascript: wrote:
I know you don't believe in COMP, but assuming COMP (I am open-minded
on the topic), mass and chemical composition are irrelevant
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:05:26 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Since we know that our consciousness is exquisitely sensitive to
particular
masses of specific chemicals, yet relatively tolerant
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 7:49:03 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
But if a human beats you at an intelligent task he would have been
programmed to do so - by evolution, by parents, teachers
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:24:15 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Two identical computers with identical programs taking environmental
input from sensors only millimetres apart could produce
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:05:58 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Fading qualia is the only argument of Chalmers' that I disagree with.
It's a
natural mistake to make, but I think he goes wrong
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:46:38 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Yes, the Big Bang is a program. There are initial conditions and rules
that lead deterministically to the unfolding of the entire
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 1:04:54 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
No, he does NOT assume this. He assumes the opposite: that
consciousness is a property of the brain and CANNOT be reproduced
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 1:42:40 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
you can see from the differences between conjoined twins, who have the
same nature and nurture, the same environment, that they are not the same
, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Well, local community TV anyways.
Jose is a great host, producer, and editor though.
Consciousness, Materialist Zombies and Multisense Realism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv8KrsRnx44
--
You received this message because you
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:19:14 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/14/2012 10:36 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net javascript:wrote:
But if a computer beats you at an intelligent task, it would have to be
programmed to do so.
And you would
On Monday, October 15, 2012 12:14:55 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
Since we know that our consciousness
You don't know diddly squat about our consciousness, you only know about
your consciousness; assuming
On Monday, October 15, 2012 12:38:30 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I think he [Chambers] goes wrong by assuming a priori that
consciousness is functional,
I've asked you this question dozens
On Monday, October 15, 2012 11:49:52 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
Just because it looks to us that the computer is following rules doesn't
mean that it is.
So now you don't like computers because they don't
On Monday, October 15, 2012 1:02:05 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You don't know diddly squat about our consciousness, you only know
about your consciousness; assuming of course that you
On Monday, October 15, 2012 2:42:33 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/15/2012 9:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
And a computer is exquisitely sensitive to particular voltages and not
sensitive at all to other voltages that don't make the threshold.
Let's see how computer fares under
On Monday, October 15, 2012 3:09:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/15/2012 11:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 15, 2012 2:42:33 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/15/2012 9:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
And a computer is exquisitely sensitive to particular voltages
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:02:44 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
A possible answer is that all
possible universes exist and we find ourselves in one of those that
has the kind of physical laws
Computation is an overly simplified emergent property of sense. If you
could have computation without sense, then there would be no consciousness.
Craig
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 7:50:17 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complex
computations
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 11:55:44 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
Did I ever say that I thought computers followed rules?
I was under the impression that you believed all computers did was blindly
follow programed
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:13:55 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I know you don't have a proof of the Goldbach Conjecture. Well OK, I
don't know that with absolute certainty, maybe you have
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:04:24 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
That there are literally laws which physics obeys is a fairy tale.
That statement is ignorance pure and simple.
Not at all. I
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 8:54:10 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Computation is an overly simplified emergent property of sense. If you
could
have computation without sense, then there would
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 9:08:49 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 8:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Craig
Weinbergwhats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Computation is an overly simplified emergent property of sense. If you
could
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:24:07 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 2:17 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 9:08:49 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 8:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Craig
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:42:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/16/2012 7:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Alberto,
OK, I am officially confused by your statements. You previously wrote:
Magic emergence from magic enough complexity has been advocated for almost
anything. and
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:19:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/16/2012 12:41 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 2:42 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/16/2012 7:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Alberto,
OK, I am officially confused by your statements. You previously wrote:
1 - 100 of 3100 matches
Mail list logo
