I don't know, somehow this whole argument is not something I could take
seriously enough to get worked up over - too many what ifs piled up on other
what ifs. But I think I see a couple of flaws in this argument. Firstly, I am
not sure about the equation of unconsciousness with death. Why
On Saturday, June 9, 2012 12:27:43 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
On 6/8/2012 7:02 PM, Pierz wrote:
I don't know, somehow this whole argument is not something I could take
seriously enough to get worked up over - too many what ifs piled up on other
what ifs. But I think I see a couple
I'm starting this as a new thread rather than continuing under 'QTI and eternal
torment', where this idea came up, because it's really a new topic.
It seems to me an obvious corollary of comp that there is in reality (3p) only
one observer, a single subject that undergoes all possible
On Monday, June 11, 2012 12:20:06 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
On 6/10/2012 6:12 PM, Pierz wrote:
I'm starting this as a new thread rather than continuing under 'QTI and
eternal torment', where this idea came up, because it's really a new topic.
It seems to me an obvious corollary of comp
On Monday, June 11, 2012 10:46:42 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Jun 2012, at 03:12, Pierz wrote:
I'm starting this as a new thread rather than continuing under 'QTI
and eternal torment', where this idea came up, because it's really a
new topic.
It seems to me
On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 12:14:26 AM UTC+10, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 6/11/2012 10:19 PM, Pierz wrote:
On Monday, June 11, 2012 10:46:42 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Jun 2012, at 03:12, Pierz wrote:
I'm starting this as a new thread rather than continuing under
On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 4:27:29 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jun 2012, at 04:19, Pierz wrote:
On Monday, June 11, 2012 10:46:42 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Jun 2012, at 03:12, Pierz wrote:
I'm starting this as a new thread rather than continuing under 'QTI
On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 10:31:31 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
On 6/12/2012 4:40 PM, Pierz wrote:
I didn't say that we would all turn into self-deniers concerned only to
help others. I said we would achieve an optimal moral society. Such a
society would always bear in mind the absolute
The phenomenon of eidetic (photographic) memory is well established as a
reality. For an example of what it means, read the top answer to this quora.com
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 3:55:41 AM UTC+11, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
I think that if extinction rates was 10k, you would already see silent
spring round the globe.
WHA?? You think that? Based on what analysis? I imagine that you, like
me, live in a metropolis where in the course of a
Umm... no. It was you. Great big smiley face.
On Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:15:24 PM UTC+11, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Richard,
Yes, it's fun to watch everyone who was dumping on Edgar now dumping on
each other even more viciously!
So maybe it wasn't Edgar after all, but those who were doing
On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 2:36:25 AM UTC+11, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
At some point, Pierz, one has to use one's senses.
Quite so, but you were making a completely invalid leap of reasoning from
your sense data - something along the lines of I see birds singing in the
trees, so mass
I used to keep a dream diary Liz, and one day when I was looking back
through my old dreams, I came across this, from October 1998:
I am in with a crowd of people in some kind of tall building in what I
think is New York. It's one of two similar buildings. We are looking out
the window when I
On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 6:07:02 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Apr 2014, at 04:29, Pierz wrote:
I used to keep a dream diary Liz, and one day when I was looking back
through my old dreams, I came across this, from October 1998:
I am in with a crowd of people in some kind
YES! I strongly believe that the agenda of control in lucid dreams is a
false path. It also doesn't work beyond a certain point. One encounters
stronger and stronger resistance from the dream process against one's
attempts to steer the dream in the direction desired by the ego. What lucid
Leibniz never used bitcoins goddammit so why should we!
--
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
Edgar is on the right track, but I need to point out his fundamental
error. There is indeed a different time from clock time. But it's not
called P-time, it's called U-time and every moment does not occur at the
same time across the universe for all observers. Rather, no two events can
ever
Everyone else has made excellent, well laid-out arguments against your
position Edgar, but I will throw in another perspective. You ask whether
two observers 'share the same common present moment'. However you don't
define what that means exactly. If I imagine your scenario of two observers
On Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:19:57 PM UTC+11, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Pierz,
The common universal present moment is defined and measured simply by
observers observing they are in the same moment at the same time.
How do they observe that they are in the same moment except
I have to admit I'm starting to derive a weird kind of enjoyment from this
debate. Liz and frequentflyer: you guys are my heroes. Though anodyne
means pain-relieving, which is not how I would describe Roger's theories.
I would choose the word jejune instead.
Edgar, ole buddy ole pal. You're
On Monday, December 30, 2013 10:18:59 AM UTC+11, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Pierz,
If block time is actual and something actually exists in past times then
the energy must actually exist there and be real also. Thus a new universe
of energy is being created at every new moment of time. Energy
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 7:40:02 AM UTC+11, Liz R wrote:
On 31 December 2013 00:00, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
I have to admit I'm starting to derive a weird kind of enjoyment from
this debate. Liz and frequentflyer: you guys are my heroes. Though
anodyne means pain
Well, it looks like Edgar isn't interested in $100 and a bottle of wine. Or
more likely the only evidence he has and can ever have for P-time is his
own simplistic logic. Jason, you're only saying what Edgar has been told
many times over in slightly different words. But he has his fingers in
It's hard to stop arguing with an irrational person, isn't it? I've already
offered Edgar $100 to tell me any experiment that could be carried out to
falsify or validate his theory (that two separated events occur in only
one absolute order), but he immediately stopped talking to me. An
Haha.
Edgar, I have also modified my views through participation on this list. As
it has for Liz, Bruno's comp has become borderline credible to me, though
I am far from a true believer. I've also been educated in a lot of
philosophy of mind and had my grasp of key concepts in physics refined
Beware Edgar! You pulled the string on John Clark's back labelled free
will. He now will emit noise...
On Saturday, January 18, 2014 3:05:43 AM UTC+11, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
This has nothing to do with
On Saturday, January 18, 2014 11:33:18 AM UTC+11, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 04:08:08PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
PS: On second thought maybe we don't agree completely. Though free will
is
quantum random based (we agree on that), it doesn't mean
I am putting this out in order to clarify my understanding - hopefully the
MWI experts out there can help me out here. A while back I asked whether
the past can be undefined at a quantum level the way the future is. I asked
this because I recall (somewhat vaguely unfortunately) reading or
A second question/thought on MWI. MWI proposes that the entire universe
splits at the point of wave collapse, or rather that it is continually and
infinitely splitting with every possible quantum state. This has been
understandably criticised as a vastly extravagant explanation. A whole
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:41:46 PM UTC+11, Liz R wrote:
On 21 January 2014 14:18, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
I am putting this out in order to clarify my understanding - hopefully
the MWI experts out there can help me out here. A while back I asked
whether the past
I'd be interested too.
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:49:20 AM UTC+11, Jason wrote:
It looks like I need to update the database connection information:
http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/
If others are interested, I will try to find time for that. I think as
useful as any page would be
I don't know why the warping effect is obvious. All space is expanding,
including that inside galaxies but the gravity effect keeps the expansion
from causing the galaxy to spread out. Imagine a soft disk sitting on top
of a balloon that is being blown up. The balloon surface (space) both under
The question is whether a whole universe is created for each state in a
superposition. Deutsch seems unequivocal that it is. I'm just questioning
a) whether that's what he really means and b) whether that is necessary.
It's necessary that that local states be able to decohere, but that doesn't
?
-Original Message-
From: Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net
To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 1:47 pm
Subject: Re: A humble suggestion to the group
Pierz,
How about a $100 bet on who's right about spacetime expansion? You or
Misner, Thorne
Excellent jessem, thanks. This line from the abstract of the first paper
you cite pretty much summarises the changed understanding of MWI I was
getting at:
Measurement-type interactions lead, not to many worlds but, rather, to many
local copies of experimental systems and the observers who
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:15:58 PM UTC+11, Liz R wrote:
On 23 January 2014 18:09, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote:
Yeah, but decoherence just makes things look classical at a
coarse-grained level (when we trace over the environment). Microscopically
it's spreading
onward and upward. Because, and precisely because,
it's not generated by a physical translation in space.
I agree with that and that's exactly what I'm saying. It's Pierz that is
disagreeing with you. Pierz thinks space is expanding without taking any
physical objects along with that expansion
Yes, dark energy *is* what he was talking about. Thanks for that
clarification. The original expansion is just a result of the residual
inertia of the big bang.
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 7:40:03 PM UTC+11, Liz R wrote:
On 23 January 2014 20:09, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote
I agree with you Russell. It's nice to have new thinkers contributing ideas
as I was getting bored with Weinberg vs Clark, but at a certain point this
group will lose interest for me completely if 90% of the threads are about
stuff unrelated to the original 'everything' list concept. It's not
.
On Friday, February 1, 2013 11:24:10 AM UTC+11, Pierz wrote:
I agree with you Russell. It's nice to have new thinkers contributing
ideas as I was getting bored with Weinberg vs Clark, but at a certain point
this group will lose interest for me completely if 90% of the threads are
about stuff
I have tried both DMT and salvia, although my salvia hits were much milder
than my DMT doses. I found DMT quite terrifying in many ways, and I can
totally relate what Bruno says regarding the salvia experience not being
fun, how it is hard and exhausting, and how one procrastinates its use, to
Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm sure the
researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion. All the research
shows is brain plasticity in interpreting signals from unusual neural pathways.
How does that invalidate mechanism?
--
You received this
I've long been interested in the very different realities which the left
and right brain hemispheres perceive. I recently read a fascinating account
of the 'pure' right brain perspective in Jill Bolte Taylor's book My
Stroke of Insight. Bolte Taylor is a neuroanatomist who suffered a
On Monday, May 13, 2013 2:49:32 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 May 2013, at 08:07, Pierz wrote:
I've long been interested in the very different realities which the left
and right brain hemispheres perceive. I recently read a fascinating account
of the 'pure' right brain
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 7:14:26 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 May 2013, at 04:15, Pierz wrote:
On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:13:19 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 May 2013, at 09:30, Pierz wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2013 2:49:32 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote
I studied Mahajana Tibetan Buddhism in Dharamsala (home of the Dalai Lama in
exile) back in the day and I agree with Bruno and others that Buddhism is
closer to idealism than materialism. However Buddhism ultimately rejects 'mind'
too, since what we think of as mind is closely related to the
I pretty much agree with you Jason. The materialist simply posits that the
conciousness of a person (or conscious being) represents a static track
through the 4d block universe, misperceived as changing due to something
about the way the brain processes. What this account fails to explain
John has a button on his forehead with the words free will written on it.
It's a bit like Woody's string in Toy Story that causes him to say reach
for the sky when you pull it. If you push John's free will button he says
something like, How quaint! The 'free will' noise. What on earth does this
On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 10:30:24 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
On 7/16/2013 5:16 PM, Pierz wrote:
I pretty much agree with you Jason. The materialist
simply posits that the conciousness of a person (or conscious
being) represents a static track through the 4d block
Oh, please. How on earth do you get from sharing happy snaps and calendar
appointments between your gadgets to God? Theidiocy.
--
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,
As an amusing pedagogical exercise for students, maybe. But teleportation
by copying information about DNA pairs? I don't think anyone would
seriously envisage teleportation by such a ludicrous method. Man-made
wormholes would surely be more feasible. Apart from anything else, what
do you do
You haven't realised he's a troll? He's single-handedly ruined the
everything list with his tedious and frequently ludicrous speculations, now
he's started trying to prod the bear with this new round of
liberal-bashing. I only wish the silent treatment he's been given would
work.
On Thursday,
Haha! Priceless...
--
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 group, send email to
You made my day
--
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 group, send email to
I need clarification of the significance of quantum theory to determining
the *past*. I remember having read or heard that the past itself is subject
to quantum uncertainty. Something like the idea that the past is determined
only to to the extent that it is forced to be so by the state of the
See here:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-rise-of-slime3a-jellyfish-and-algae-thrive-in-new-oceanic-/4838478
It seems as oceans warm and the marine environment is degraded by
overfishing and pollution, the once thriving biodiversity of the oceans is
being replaced
Yes my understanding would be the same. Although the brain or computer's
ability to correctly represent the information about what has happened has
been destroyed by the reset, the information itself is still embedded in
the environment. Resetting registers in a computer does not actually
Self-contradictory. You've got to follow your own theories to their logical
conclusions. *Which* Western/third world would have been better off if WW3
hadn't happened? Since everything happens in some branch of the
multiverse, surely there are innumerable branches in which the world is
better
...since first of all the additional happiness in those non-WW3
branches... What I mean of course is the additional happiness in the WW3
branches. The non-WW3 branches are much *less* happy right Saibal?
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:49:59 AM UTC+10, Pierz wrote:
Self-contradictory. You've
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 5:13:43 PM UTC+10, stathisp wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013, Pierz wrote:
...since first of all the additional happiness in those non-WW3
branches... What I mean of course is the additional happiness in the WW3
branches. The non-WW3 branches are much
as business as usual in
our brains have their origin in arbitrary events in our history, as
there is no preference for the flagging as business as usual being
preferred given the way our brain works.
Saibal
Citeren Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript::
...since first of all the additional
If I might just butt in (said the barman)...
It seems to me that Craig's insistence that nothing is Turing emulable,
only the measurements are expresses a different ontological assumption
from the one that computationalists take for granted. It's evident that if
we make a flight simulator, we
the brain or consciousness to be certain of any conclusions
derived from logic alone. We may be like Newtonians arguing cosmology
without the benefit of QM and relativity.
On Monday, September 30, 2013 2:08:23 PM UTC+10, stathisp wrote:
On 30 September 2013 11:36, Pierz pie...@gmail.com
Maybe. It would be a lot more profound if we definitely *could* reproduce the
brain's behaviour. The devil is in the detail as they say. But a challenge to
Chalmer's position has occurred to me. It seems to me that Bruno has
convincingly argued that *if* comp holds, then consciousness
Sorry, this list behaves strangely on my iPad. I can't reply to individual
posts. The post above was meant to be a reply to stathis and his remark that
it is possible to prove that it is impossible to replicate its observable
behaviour (a brain's) without also replicating its consciousness.
On Friday, October 4, 2013 4:10:02 AM UTC+10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, October 3, 2013 9:30:13 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think that evil continues to flourish, precisely because science has
On Thursday, October 3, 2013 4:59:17 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
On 10/1/2013 11:49 PM, Pierz wrote:
On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 3:15:01 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
On 10/1/2013 9:56 PM, Pierz wrote:
Yes, I understand that to be Chalmer's main point. Although, if the
qualia can
I'm puzzled by the controversy over this issue - although given that I'm
not a physicist and my understanding comes from popular renditions of MWI
by Deutsch and others, it may be me who's missing the point. But in my
understanding of Deutsch's version of MWI, the reason for Born
he would have made of
Everett if he'd been a bit younger. When he died in 1970, it was still
probably too out there for him to have seriously considered.
Brent
On 10/10/2013 6:11 PM, Pierz wrote:
I'm puzzled by the controversy over this issue - although given that I'm
not a physicist
That is pretty much exactly my understanding. It does puzzle me that this
argument about the supposed probability problem with MWI is still live,
when that explanation seems perfectly coherent.
On Friday, October 11, 2013 10:04:40 PM UTC+11, Liz R wrote:
If you subdivide a continuum, I assume
And just to follow up on that, there are still an infinite number of
irrational numbers between 0 and 0.1. But not as large an infinity as
those between 0.1 and 1. So extrapolating to universes, the very low
probability, white rabbit universes also occur an infinite number of times,
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 9:07:57 AM UTC+11, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 04:09:20AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
The former. Deutsch goes into the problem of infinite countable sets
in
great detail and shows how this is *not* a problem for these uncountable
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 10:08:05 AM UTC+11, Brent wrote:
On 10/11/2013 3:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 03:08:30PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
UD* (trace of the universal dovetailer) is a continuum, AFAICT. It has
the cardinality of the reals, and a natural
Come on Craig, admit you wrote that. It's the last paragraph that is the
dead give-away.
On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:07:59 PM UTC+11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
A Quora answer to the following question. Nothing new for me here
probably, but It's maybe organized in a more concise way.
Wow, dogs might have emotions? What will they think of next? I suppose
they'll do MRIs on autistic people to demonstrate the possibility that they
have feelings too. There's got to be a Nobel in that. Mind you, where will
it all end? First dogs, then maybe mice will feel things too, and we'll
Sophistry has a smell. Sometimes an argument smells of it, but it may
be a lot harder to pin down where the specious logic is – especially
when it’s all dressed up in a mathematical formalism that may be
inaccessible to the non-mathematician/logician. However the problem
with the arguments
OK, so I've read the UDA and I 'get' it, but at the moment I simply
can't accept that it is anything like a 'proof'. I keep reading Bruno
making statements like If we are machine-emulable, then physics is
necessarily reducible to number psychology, but to me there remain
serious flaws, not in the
marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Sep 2011, at 04:20, Pierz wrote:
OK, so I've read the UDA and I 'get' it,
Wow. Nice!
but at the moment I simply
can't accept that it is anything like a 'proof'.
Hmm... (Then you should not say I get it, but I don't get it). A
proof is only something
again). No insult to you, Bruno, intended, this time.
On Sep 27, 2:08 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Sep 2011, at 04:42, Pierz wrote:
OK, well first of all let me retract any ad hominem remarks that may
have offended you. Call it a rhetorical flourish! I apologise
Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, well I think this and the other responses (notably Jason's) have
brought me a lot closer to grasping the essence of this argument. I
can see that the set of integers is also the set of all
- like QFT
mathematics. I suppose jumping spiders can do QFT equations too,
right?
On Sep 29, 2:07 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Sep 2011, at 05:44, Pierz wrote:
OK, well I think this and the other responses (notably Jason's) have
brought me a lot closer to grasping
. I don't know that it's germane to the points
I'm making though.
On Nov 19, 8:49 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Nov 2011, at 03:02, Pierz wrote:
In a previous post I launched a kamizake assault on UDA which was
justly cut to shreds on the basis of a number
:
On 11/18/2011 6:02 PM, Pierz wrote:
So if there are infinite pathways where I turn into a giraffe, as
there must be, there is no way for my 1-p experience to select
probabilistically among these pathways. I can no longer say, if the
set of calculation pathways is infinite, that giraffe
wrote:
On 19 Nov 2011, at 03:02, Pierz wrote:
In a previous post I launched a kamizake assault on UDA which was
justly cut to shreds on the basis of a number of misunderstandings on
my part, perhaps most crucially my conflation of information and
computation. I claimed that the UD cannot
On Dec 17, 4:39 pm, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 08:26:21PM -0800, Pierz wrote:
...snip...
The problem is even deeper than this, however. How does the system
‘know’ when two locations should be bilocated? This works OK for a
single copy of Klara
Of course, when consciousness is taken seriously into account, we can
sense some incoherence, but empirically, this is the hard part to
convey, and without MGA/Maudlin, I have not been able to convince of
the frank incoherence.
And you've been successful with the MGA? I am philosophically
This thread has been extremely helpful to me in terms of getting to
the heart of this problem and the whole issue of supervenience - thank
you Joseph for your clarification of the meaning of the term and for
your succinct and clear summary of the MGA, and to David for the nice
clarification of the
On Dec 30, 6:35 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2011 4:11 PM, Pierz wrote:
You think it is ludicrous that a Mars Rover is programmed to monitor the
state of its
battery, the temperature of its motors, the amount of memory available for
pictures, etc?
Brent
sigh Let's
On Dec 31, 4:36 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 30 Dec 2011, at 03:10, Pierz wrote:
This thread has been extremely helpful to me in terms of getting to
the heart of this problem and the whole issue of supervenience - thank
you Joseph for your clarification of the meaning
On Dec 31, 6:17 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2011 12:51 AM, Pierz wrote:
On Dec 30, 6:35 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2011 4:11 PM, Pierz wrote:
You think it is ludicrous that a Mars Rover is programmed to monitor the
state of its
battery
When you write things like that I'm left with the impression that you think
one's
consciousness is a thing, a soul, that moves to different bundles of
computation so there
are some bundles that don't have any consciousness but could have if you
jumped to them.
Not to wish to pre-empt
Stage hypnosis is one thing, but as a former psychotherapist who has
used hypnotherapy, I can say that it is a great oversimplification to
say that a hypnotic subject raises their hand without awareness. What
actually occurs is dissociation, in which awareness is split, not
absent. This has been
Not to wish to pre-empt Bruno's reply, but I think you're mixing up 1-
p and 3-p. From 3-p, all branches are conscious, but I only experience
myself on one branch at a time, probabilistically according to the
measure of computations. There's no individual soul, just in one sense
a
As I continue to ponder the UDA, I keep coming back to a niggling
doubt that an arithmetical ontology can ever really give a
satisfactory explanation of qualia. It seems to me that imputing
qualia to calculations (indeed consciousness at all, thought that may
be the same thing) adds something that
of stuff.
On Jan 26, 11:08 pm, acw a...@lavabit.com wrote:
On 1/26/2012 08:19, Pierz wrote:
As I continue to ponder the UDA, I keep coming back to a niggling
doubt that an arithmetical ontology can ever really give a
satisfactory explanation of qualia. It seems to me that imputing
On Jan 27, 9:52 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:19 am, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
of my own here: no properties can emerge from a complex system that
are not present in primitive form in the parts of that system. There
What about gliders emerging from
On Jan 28, 11:04 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 26.01.2012 07:19 Pierz said the following:
As I continue to ponder the UDA, I keep coming back to a niggling
doubt that an arithmetical ontology can ever really give a
satisfactory explanation of qualia. It seems to me
On Jan 28, 11:28 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Jan 2012, at 23:01, Pierz wrote:
On Jan 27, 9:52 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Jan 26, 1:19 am, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
of my own here: no properties can emerge from a complex system
On Jan 29, 10:57 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/28/2012 3:15 PM, Pierz wrote:
On Jan 28, 11:04 pm, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 26.01.2012 07:19 Pierz said the following:
As I continue to ponder the UDA, I keep coming back to a niggling
doubt
On Jan 27, 1:26 am, acw a...@lavabit.com wrote:
On 1/26/2012 15:28, Pierz wrote:
Arithmetic itself can admit many interpretation and axioms tell you what
'arithmetic' isn't and what theorems must follow, not what it is
I don't see that. I mean, sure you can't say what a number
1 - 100 of 290 matches
Mail list logo
