ulated?) hearsay assumptions and their consequences. We 'guess' what we
do not know.
You see, I should keep my mouse shut...
John
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 5/9/2011 11:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 09 May 2011, at 18:57, meekerdb
TH -* there are
tenets you or me may accept as 'true' in some sense.
I think I already sent you my 'draft' about "Science-Religion" about belief
systems.
Have a good time
John M
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> On 09 May
Brent wrote:
*"But it also entails that The World of Warcraft and what I dreamed last
night exist.*
*Brent"*
Of course! they exist as "themselves" - not in context of 'QM or the Bible,
or anything else'. Anything we think of "exists" - at least in our thought
(at that time?) when it occurred. There
Brent: I mostly agree (if it is of any value...).
I am FOR an idea of MWI (maybe not as the 'classic' goes: in my view ALL of
them may be potentially different) but appreciate the power of hearsay
(absorbed as FACT) - you may include other sensory/mental domains as well.
What I take exception to
ather a process, the discontinuation of it also may
be a process with different parameters.
John M
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Isn't all of this a denial of death ? Is it possible to ascribe a meaning
> to the end of consciousness ?
>
> Quentin
>
&g
Dear Brent,
let me cut in with your last par:
*"...There is a tendency to talk about "human-equivalent intelligence" or
"human level intelligence" as an ultimate goal. Human intelligence evolved
to enhance certain functions: cooperation, seduction, bargaining,
deduction,... There's no reason to
Dear Bruno, would you have an e-mail address where I can contact Ben
Goertzel - an old list acquaintance ?
Thanks
John Mikes
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to every
Dear Rex,
an enjoyable reading, indeed. I send my best to Caenorhabdites elegantes for
their scientific prowess.
Are your numbers correct? Is the brain-"wiring" length indeed 170 trillion
microns long? (I took 1.7 km for a mile).
And for the synapses: I was modest and took only 10 billion neurons
Russell:
"...Life-like phenomena"
implies something 'life-like'. So: LIKE WHAT are those phenomena?
I would not turn to my other side in peace that biologists are negligent. I
ask them:
what do you have in mind when you SAY: l i f e ? (their base line: the
'bio')
It is more than just biochem ch
e-coordinates of *our *physical system* inside our universe*. It may also
mean the destruction of ALL outgoing information that could disclose the
(physically perceived?) existence of the universe, a condition I take
important for (my term) singularity.
Regards
John Mikes
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:20 AM,
trial concepts are includable, it is independent of our so
far acquired knowledge and does not restrict the application to the physical
world and so the domains developed by the human mind. I have no theory to
that, am insecure about the deterministic 'happening' - a term that requires
ftware's native 'hardware analyzer', we're not going to see anything
> because that viewer is only a command line text editor. Nothing looks
> like it has free will when you use that.
>
> On Jul 2, 10:52 am, John Mikes wrote:
> > Deqr Craig,
> >
> >
Friends:
Lots of *mouse*-traps written in this and
other*posts/preposts/repost/superposts/etc.
*
God? Truth? Reality? even: 'physical world' - goes on and on. Our thoughts
(human)? imagination? experiential vs. experiential (Incl. Kim's French
explanation) are un-finishable qualms online. Bruno in
can make wonders - and we can explain its meaning ("it must be").
Or a new chapter in our calculations (Like: the zero or the complex numbers
etc.)
Can you "prove" something to "exist"?
I salute John Clark's (" I have absolutely no loyalty toward theories.&qu
ing universes of quite
(unrestricted) qualia and re-absorbing them into the complexity. Tima
and Space are OUR coordinates for THIS universe of ours. Carbon???
Matter? I don't speculate beyond the capabilities of human thinking.
Best to all
Craig
> *John Mikes
> --
> *You receive
al logic ONLY.
Just compare "opinions" (scientific that is) of different ages before (and
after) different levels of accepted (and believed!) informational basis
(like Flat Earth, BEFORE electricity, BEFORE Marie Curie, Watson, etc.)
My "worldview" (and my narrative, of cour
David Nyman wrote:
*On 25 January 2012 19:46, meekerdb
<**meeke...@verizon.net*
*> wrote:*
*> Note that the theories I mentioned do not assume a spacetime vacuum.
One
> may say they assume a potentiality for a spacetime vacuum, but to deny
even
> potential would be to deny that anything c
to be read in full.
Maybe you could ask professor Wei Dai... (he showed much civility in the
past when members had difficulties using his list).
John Mikes
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Johnathan Corgan wrote:
> I have a filter set in my mail software such that any Everything List
>
Evgenii, I am not sure if it is your text, or Russell's":
*"**In general, I do not understand what does it mean that information
at zero Kelvin is zero. Let us take a coin and cool it down. Do you mean
that the text on the coin will disappear? Or you mean that no one device
can read this text a
I got the humor in your post alright, but we had a wise slogan in the old
country;
HUMOR always includes more than half of serious basis, so I responded to
THAT part.
John
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Johnathan Corgan wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:07 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> &
t: nobody CAN have PERFECT info.
We are living in a model of our ad hoc knowledge while the not yet received
"rest of the infinite complexity of the world" also influences our
existence (decisions?) beyond the portion we know of.
As is the rest of his reply.
John Mikes
On Mon, Feb 6,
tion': every change occurs within the feasibility of the 'givens' -
some survive, some don't. Occasional snapshots of our science don't even
detect the completely unsuccessful.
'Free Will': cousin of 'random', we, as products of the Infinite Complexity
have
additional info.
And: "universes" (whatever they may be) are not restricted to that ONE
pattern we - sort of - pretend
to know about.
Shouldn't we open up our mind?
John Mikes
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 2:19 PM, 1Z wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 19, 4:52 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
rative' - not a theory).
I don't see what effect of OUR shrinking might cause a slow-down in
frequency?
John Mikes
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Kim Jones wrote:
> Probably. From a friend of mine on Facebook: "Is it possible that the
> notion of the universe expanding is rea
Craig:
where has that "primordial singularity" come from? and what "expansion"?
I like to use terms beyond hearsay or fantasy. (Of course MY narrative is
fantasy based on hearsay, - B U T
it makes sense in its cosequences, I think.)
John M
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
Dear Craig,
my first step was to join Quora but it asked for my password what I denied
to disclose to Facebook and other 'social' networks as well (staying
private).
In the quoted excerpt were wise thoughts (time-scale etc.) but it did not
address my main point: whatever we THINK about that 'thing
People have too much time on their hand to argue back and forth.
Whatever (theory) we talk about has been born from human mind(s)
consequently only HALF _ TRUE max (if at all).
"I" imagine te doctor, "I" imagine the numbers (there are none in Nature)
"I" imagine controversies and matches, arithemt
erson departed? Would have been
nice to read about onesself all those ornamental epithetons...
John Mikes
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> Future Day: a new global holiday March 1 February 29, 2012
>
> *[+]* <http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/future_day.png>Why
knowledge-base (see the above dates as examples) adjusted by everybody's
PERSONALIZED genetic tool (brain?) and accumulated personal experiential
material. Accordingly no two people have identical image for the 'world'. I
call that after Colin Hales our "mini-solipsism".
I am read
, not only haphazardous. A
'deterministic' totality, however, is a matter of belief for me -
unjustified as well - because of the partial 'order' we detect in the so
far knowable nature (negating 'random' occurrences that would screw-up any
order, even the limited local
Russell, Bruno, and John: you guys seem to know something about energy.
I asked lots of physicists and philosophers what that 'animal' may be and
the smartest respond was: "capability (sic!) to do work", inviting my
follow-up: what 'capability'? how does it appear, disappear and work? and I
asked N
Craig and Brent:
"Free Will" is not a matter of faith. One does not "believe "IN" it, or
not".
(Of course this is a position in my (agnostic) worldview - my 'belief' ha
ha).
We are part of an infinite complexity with limited capabilities to accept
influence from the infinite factors (if those ARE f
Brent and Bruno:
you both have statements in this endless discussion about processing ideas
of quantum computers.
I would be happy to read about ONE that works, not a s a potentiality, but
as a real tool, the function of which is understood and APPLIED. (Here, on
Earth).
John Mikes
On Mon, Mar 12
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 14 Mar 2012, at 21:34, John Mikes wrote:
>
> >>Craig and Brent:
> "Free Will" is not a matter of faith. One does not "believe "IN" it, or
> not".
> (Of course this is a
indeed not for
the entire
thought-play) can notice *"a"* state - irrespectively from any former
history.
Sorry to embarge into this time- and energy wasting strawmanship.
John Mikes
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 17 Mar 2012, at 05:05, John Clark w
Stephen, - especially to the 2nd part of your reply -
I do not speak about a 'certain' uncertainty (i.e. 'quantum') I speak about
the concept: "uncertainty" is inherent in whatever we think about, because
in our 'model' of the knowable world there is only part of the total (see
the historical addit
ew': maybe that will be something better than
today's uncertainty-riding "quantum" idea.
John M
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 14 Mar 2012, at 21:41, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Brent and Bruno:
> you both have statements in this endl
This is how I ended up with many of my patents. For the same
reason do I NOT call my 'Plenitude-story' of generating universes a *
NARRATIVE*, not a theory.
JohnM
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 23 Mar 2012, at 17:34, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Brun
Maybe it is my fault.
Thanks anyway
JohnM
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> On 3/23/2012 11:47 AM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Stephen, - especially to the 2nd part of your reply -
> I do not speak about a 'certain' uncertainty (i.e. 'quant
Brent and Craig:
Interesting back-and-forth on conventional ignorance basis.
We (in physics etc.) identified 'atoms' by mostly mathematical
treatment of poorly (if at all) understood phenomenal information (?)
limited to the capability pf the 'then' human mind.
Now 'we' invented zombies, as a ment
David: when I first tried to make sense of the 'world' (that was after
retirement and ~200 recently issued books on advanced 'thoughts') I started
with an 'ode':
In the Beginning there was Nothingness and when Nothingness realized it's
Nothingness, it changed. becoming a "Somethingness". - The rest
/2012 1:08 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Brent and Craig:
>
> Interesting back-and-forth on conventional ignorance basis.
>
>
> My ignorance isn't a convention - it's the real thing. :-)
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed t
Silly "Subject": so far nobody could tell *H O W* * *a
*brain*(tissue-comp?) could
*MIND *a*nything? (*react, maybe. )
I still wait for a refusal to my statement that there "may" not be any FREE
will in a partially known environment with unknown factors yet influencing
(all?) the occurrences? I
Socratus, and discussion friends:
are we so simpletons, indeed? does a flat EM (field?) plus the 'variety' of
cells constitute a 'person'? does it justify our psychological mistakes? (I
mention deliberately those, not the regularities, to divert from 'rules we
know').
I think (?) a sort of "pattern
regards
John
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:24 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net <
socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote:
> Thank you Mr. John Mikes.
>
> My opinion.
> Quantum electrodynamics: Who am I ?
> =.
> In 1904 Lorentz proved:
*(It was long ago, since then much could be (dis?)qualified
David, IZ, Brent:
do you have some fairly acceptable (for whom?) ID about that darn 'vita'?
That would ease the problem to accept or reject EV. Some people 'ride' the
Terrestrial Biosphere churning of C-based molecules (some add: M&R =
metabolism and repair) but there may be more to it. And if ther
Evgenii:
are you sure we 'know' the base-line of AI? is (human) mentality discovered
in all its details? is it possible to program ALL details into a machine?
We seem to be restricted to our insufficient knowledge of the "so far". All
we can artificialize is that sofarness of (human) intelligence.
Evgenii:
MWI is great, I just cannot follow the logic why ALL 'worlds' should be
identical with this one we are doomed to live in (except for playing with
the 'transport' folly). This one is so lousy that ONE is more than enough
of it.
I derived a narrative for (my) Bigbang (one word) with innumera
to something I don't understand - but that's human.
I fancied the UM as something above all of us and our knowble world.
JM
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> John,
>
> On 28 Apr 2012, at 02:49, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Evgenii:
> are you sure we &#x
Craig:
you seem to be firmly anchored in a reductionist conventional view of the
"know-it-all" model of yesterday. Which is OK with me, as YOUR opinion. I
consider - in my agnostic limitations - those 'factors' (rather: relations)
we did not encounter SO FAR and give an extended view to the model.
Is it so hard to understand a "word"?
* - N O T H I N G - *is not a set of anything, no potential, no vacuum,
no borders or characteristics just nothin'.
There is 'nothing' in it means an "it" - measureable and sizable.
Folks-talk refers usually to a lack of a material content.
I agree with Bru
x27;think' there is something. Do we have the capacity of going back *
further* than *we can*? Certainly not, - YET - we draw conclusions fitting
into our today's liking about such.
Thanks for your remarks on my - now obsolete - memory.
John Mikes
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 12:24 PM, John
rse (i.e. empty space is simpler than things existing in it). But why
> this intuition about *our* reality should be extrapolated to metaphysics?
>
> - I think that the important question is why this universe instead of any
> other universe? (including "nothing").
>
> Ricard
Stathis: what's your definition? - JM
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> > I have started listening to Beginning of Infinity and joined the
> discussion
> > list for the book. Right now there is a discussion there
me the 'light' reply, please.
John M
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 5:17 PM, R AM wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:46 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
>> Ricardo:
>> good text! I may add to it:
>> "Who created Nothing? - of course: Nobody". (The ancient joke of
Bruno and Ricardo:
...unless you remove the "boundries" as well - I think.
That would end up for "nothing" with a POINT, which is still a point and
not nothing. (If you eliminate the point???)
John M
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 09 May 2012, at 21:39, R AM wrote
27;information' (hard to specify!) ends up in
relations as it 'refers' to complexity-aspects.
Sorry for using so many unfamiliar words.
John M
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 10 May 2012, at 21:09, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno and Ricardo:
>
m's razor.
Not as a term of the infinite complexity I have in mind.
JM
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 12 May 2012, at 22:51, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Pure non-consciousness?
> that would approach the 'pure(?) nothingness' - even in my gene
of it with a partial knowledge. I never
promised symbols (or even a rose garden).
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 5:34 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 5/14/2012 1:58 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Qualia aspect?
> Please consider my 'rigid' agnostic stance with all those unknowable
>
Colin,
you always have something extraordinary and unexpectable to say. Like:
"infinity of energy" what can be easily zero as well, of something
(- currently unidentified.)
It still leaves open my quale: 'nothing must not have borders either, (that
would be a NO-nothing) so as far as our (incomplet
Bruno wrote:
--
*"Provable depends on the theory. If the theory is unsound, what it proves
might well be false.*
*And if you trust the theory, then you know that "the theory is consistent"
is true, yet the theory itself cannot prove it, so reality is larger that
what you can prove in th
Brent wrote:
*1. Presumably those true things would not be 'real'. Only provable things
would be true of reality.*
**
*2. Does arithmetic have 'finite information content'? Is the axiom of
succession just one or is it a schema of infinitely many axioms?*
**
Appreciable, even in layman's logic.
awe and keep my agnostic indeterminism.
JohnM
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 6:06 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 5/26/2012 9:35 AM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Brent wrote:
>
> *1. Presumably those true things would not be 'real'. Only provable
> things would be true of reality.*
&g
Evgenij:
to your last par (small remark):
(and I repeat the outburst of a religious scientist upon my post
questioning his 'faith'):
"Who gave you the audacity to feel so superior to (some?) WORKING CLASS?"
(I apologize: you seem to be only the messenger)
Then again (in the message): "GENTLEMEN"? a
t all.
We don't even know if the 'infinite complexity' is a dynamic set of
relations only, or an infinite(?) system(?) of everything in an interchange?
Or: whatever we cannot even think of?
But we are proud of our Free Will. Good for us.
John Mikes
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:07 AM,
Stathis:
in my simplicity: "free is free" and *"pseudo"* means *"not really".*
So: *pseudo-free
will* is *not free (will*), only something similar. Restricted by
circumstances. Or so.
I allow into my 'deterministically' constrained free will(!) a free
choice from available variants. I know nothing
t that is an old hat).
JM
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:06 AM, John Mikes wrote:
> > Stathis:
> > in my simplicity: "free is free" and "pseudo" means "not really". So:
> > p
y of which
currently we know only a portion. More we know than yesterday or 1000 -
10,000 years ago, but believably less than we *may* learn hereafter. (I.e.
in my agnosticism).
(And you left untouched my question about * W H O* is discussing with *YOUR
* brain - and how?)
John Mikes Ph.D., D.Sc.
On Wed,
, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> John,
>
> On 14 Jun 2012, at 23:05, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Dear Stathis
>
> let me try to explain myself in a less "1st p. vocabulary". As I
> explained I carry an *'agnostic'* worldview, beca
Evgeniy: Hawkins may require "cause and effect" we just don't know "how
many" of those are working? We select in our known model the most likely
initiating "cause" while many others may act from the still
unknown/unknowable infinite 'complexity' background "out there" (and "in
here") as well, some
Jason, I don't have anything against your question just pick one expression
from your post:
---..."or are there other conceivable universes"...--
Are you meaning that "conceivable" (for us?) includes 'inconceivable' (for
us) as well, or would you rather restrict your 'list' to such universes that
..." response.
I started on the list more than 10 years ago.
Welcome to the place of free spirits
John Mikes
On 11/13/08, Gordon Tsai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruno:
>
>I'd like to hear more details about MGA if you don't mind. I tried to
> find the detai
On 11/19/08, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>..." Keep in mind we try to refute the
> conjunction MECH and MAT.>
> Nevertheless your intuition below is mainly correct, but the point is
> that accepting it really works, AND keeping MECH, will force us to
> negate MAT.
>
> Bruno
> ht
Kory:
>"...It's not that I don't believe in life"<
In WHAT??? Some people believe in god, some in numbers, none can
reasonably identify the target of their belief. How about you?
*
>"... I just that I think that molecules, bits,
patterns, whatever, are the things that play the role ..."<
The
Brent,
did your dog communicate to you (in dogese, of course) that she has - NO -
INNER NARRATIVE? or you are just ignorant to perceive such?
(Of course do not expect such at the complexity level of your 11b neurons)
John M
On 11/22/08, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Günther Greindl
On 11/22/08, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> John Mikes wrote:
>> Brent,
>> did your dog communicate to you (in dogese, of course) that she has - NO -
>> INNER NARRATIVE? or you are just ignorant to perceive such?
>> (Of course do not expect such
M): Bruno, in my opinion NOTHING is 'third person sharable' - only a
'thing' (from every- or no-) can give rise to develop a FIRST personal
variant of the sharing, more or less (maybe) resembling the original 'to
be shared' one. In its (1st) 'personal' variation.
And how much is that "2 kg" in that 'other' universe?
JM
On 11/23/08, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 20 Nov 2008, at 19:08, m.a. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> Let us go back to the point. The point of MGA is to show that MEC +
>>> MAT implies a contradiction. You
our (mini?) solipsism: that's what we are.
So we should not fight being called a solipsist.
Without such there would be no discussion, just zombies' acceptance.
Respectfully
John M
On 11/23/08, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 23 Nov 2008, at 17:41, John Mik
Si nisi non esset perfectum quodlibet esset (if "IF" not existed everything
would be perfect.
Maybe I am a partial zombie for these things.
(Mildly said).
John M
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Kory Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 26, 2008, at 5:29 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
se" - IMO - is a limited term of ancient narrow epistemic (model
based?) views, not fit for discussions in a "TOE"-oriented style.
Using obsolete words impress the coclusions as well.
John Mikes
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
y and number) *
universes*, but I am ready to change it to a better idea any time.)
I wonder if I added to the obscurity of my language. If yes, I am sorry.
John M
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> John Mikes wrote:
> > Bren
Bruno,
I wanted to submit some reflections to M.A. but you did it better.
Two words, however, I picked out:
*1. bifurcate*
I consider it a human narrowness to expect "anything" *to split in
TWO*(only) - Nature (the existence?) does not 'count'.
It has unlimited varants and the choices come under t
Hi, Bruno; you wrote (see below):
"Doesn't amoebas split in two?"
I did not expect from you to quote 1 (ONE) case that does not comply with a
general statement as 'evidence', especially when this 1 case is a figmentous
conclusion from the "physical world's" reductionist science.
(- Even 78 addit
Ronald, Bruno, and others:
I am the 'old naive commonsesicle guy' who considers 'everything' as
'everything'. Not curtailed into mathematical, physical, or other human
invented topical restrictions, not even into the "possible" as WE think
about it today.
I go with Hal Ruhl in washing away the lim
Kim,
I enjoyed your bilingual blurb 'around' music, as I guess.
Is mathematique (numbers?) something like music? a gift one either has or
not?
David Bohm said (and I have great esteem for the man) that numbers are human
creations.
If Bruno - and his cohorts - state that everything is just numbers -
m.a. and Bruno:
*"BETTER OUTCOME"???*
better for whom? better than what?
Judging human?
JohnM
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Le 05-déc.-08, à 14:26, M.A. a écrit :
>
> > Bruno,
> > Is it possible that as all my copies strive towards bett
ohn M
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 9:36 PM, M.A. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *I don't know about Bruno, but I'm just referring to the ordinary
> person's attempts to improve his life in such categories as: love, health,
> creative fulfillment, prosperity, wisdom and s
Kim (and Bruno, if you allow me to intrude):
Bruno's "IF" depends IMO on how one is defining "machine". Evidently NOT a
mechanical contraption driven by 'energy'(?) input and built-in controls
that are operated by a 'machinist' of higher consciousness. Then again
Descartes? I would call his point
Bruno wrote:
"...I am not my body - I am not my brain --
I can change everything and anything I want about me and still remain me
ergo "I" am an immaterial something: probably a number or a very long
bitstring which can, like any data, be crunched..."
*
I like the 'probably', with a 'meaningless'
Dear Anna,
I think this is the first time I reflect to your post and I found them
reasonable, well informed. You wrote:
"..*some subjective experience of personhood or* "being" *that we all share*,
and each of us presumably experiences *something* like that."
I emphasize the 'something': who know
Colin, Hi!
I join your "liking":
self awareness is a good name for something I questioned to be well
identified, or not. So is consciousness, life, and lots of terms we 'like'
to use as if we knew what we are talking about. ('Numbers' included).
I did not oppose most of Anna's position, (in ~20 wor
Kim,
although I try to keep my common sense, I do enjoy sometimes the follies in
the transport and zombie etc. abominations.
To bring in, however, why a 'machine' should be in English a lady, is too
much for me.
In 'my' language there are NO genders at all, almost as in Swedish (utrum
= human and
Bruno and Kim,
enjoyable discours by two math.-ly impaired minds (excuse me Kim!) - I met
several youngsters (up to 70 y.o.) who simply had no 'pitch' to math - yet
were good smart artists, even business(wo)men, parents and technicians (not
so with politicians, they are not what I call 'smart').
I
Bruno et al.:
I don't feel comfortable with the view "reality *OF* something". Reality IMO
is the
unfathomable existence (whatever that may be) and *WE - machines, mind,* you
name it are having access to portions that we interpret (realize?) in ways *we
can.*
This portion (part, view, ensemble, w
into your text below, starting the paragraphs with 'MJ':
Tnanks for the reply
John
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> John,
>
> On 25 Dec 2008, at 14:46, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno et al.:
>
> I don't feel comfortable with the view "
Dear Bruno,
I decided so many times not to reflect to the esoteric sci-fi assumptions
(thought experiments?) on this list - about situations beyond common sense,
their use as templates for consequences.
Now, however, I can't control my 'mouse' - in random and probabilistics.
*
Bruno quotes in " -
ous
theories (like the conventional - or not so conventional - physics).
(Anyway this side-line was far from 'random' or 'probabiliyt'
the focus of my post.)
John M
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> John Mikes wrote:
> > Dear Bruno,
&g
ity.
I read Bell and Aspect 2 decades ago and thanks for the
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~kono/ELEC565/Aspect_Nature.pdf
for a refresher.
John M
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> John Mikes wrote:
> > Brent wrote:
> >
> > "...But the EPR experiments
Stathis,
common sense, not always applicable to math-related topics
is startled before a task on a REGULAR contraption-type Turing machine
(binary, electrically driven finite hardware etc.) can emulate ALL the
potentials of 11+billion neurons in unrestricted groupings and unlimited
connectivities
801 - 900 of 1158 matches
Mail list logo
