Re: for Cosmin

First thing first, you're the one who started insulting people... Secondly, as much as we've asked, you didn't provide any evidence for your delirium. So do provide a test that could invalidate your claims or keep them for your own entertainment. Quentin Le lun. 29 avr. 2019 à 15:17, 'Cosmin Vis

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

Le mer. 1 mai 2019 à 18:13, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> a écrit : > How is a computer conscious ? Magic ? Are you even aware of the Chinese > Room argument ? > Yes, and how is the chinese room not conscious ? Because you have to associate it either to th

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

sciousness. The self-model is a quantum leap forward, giving > us the ability to say "I am". The ego gets a bad rap but it's responsible > for our ability to notice ourselves and live within and create ongoing > narratives about what we are, in relation to what we aren'

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

table up to N steps... To fill it, you have to execute a correct implementation in the first place. Le jeu. 2 mai 2019 à 17:44, Bruno Marchal a écrit : > > On 1 May 2019, at 21:41, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Map lookup is a valid implementation for any program you can conceive, >

Re: Does all computation generate heat?

Pleasure for the all loving god to have creatures to torture ? But the problem of evil is not that simple. Le ven. 3 mai 2019 à 12:46, smitra a écrit : > What's the point of creating criminals and then to torture those > criminals for eternity in hell? > > On 03-05-2019 04:41, Samiya Illias wro

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-04-01 9:46 GMT+02:00 Russell Standish : > On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 08:37:36AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Russell Standish > > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:17:00AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-04-13 19:50 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou : > > > On Tuesday, April 14, 2015, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: >> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Telmo Menez

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-04-13 23:08 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou : > > > On Tuesday, April 14, 2015, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> >> >> 2015-04-13 19:50 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou : >> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, April 14, 2015, 'Chris de Morsell

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

Le 13 avr. 2015 23:56, "Stathis Papaioannou" a écrit : > > > > On Tuesday, April 14, 2015, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >> 2015-04-13 23:08 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou : >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, Apri

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

Le 14 avr. 2015 03:04, "Stathis Papaioannou" a écrit : > > On 14 April 2015 at 09:52, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> > >> > >> My body disintegrates yet I feel that I persist. I say this means personal > >> identity is an illusion; you can disagree about use of the word

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

Le 14 avr. 2015 08:04, "Stathis Papaioannou" a écrit : > > On 14 April 2015 at 15:29, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le 14 avr. 2015 03:04, "Stathis Papaioannou" a écrit : > >> > >> On 14 April 2015 at 09:52, Bru

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-04-14 8:44 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou : > On 14 April 2015 at 16:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > >> > Some sort of dualisms could allow duplication others don't. Saying you > >> > can > >> > whatever methaphysical axioms is false. Consciousne

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-04-14 9:40 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou : > On 14 April 2015 at 17:05, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > >> I don't see any difference between a metaphysical theory saying > >> consciousness is not duplicable and one saying bananas are not > >> du

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-04-14 12:55 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou : > > > On 14 April 2015 at 17:48, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > > 2015-04-14 9:40 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou : > >> > >> On 14 April 2015 at 17:05, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> > >&

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-04-14 15:56 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou : > > > On Tuesday, April 14, 2015, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> >> >> 2015-04-14 12:55 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou : >> >>> >>> >>> On 14 April 2015 at 17:48, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-04-14 18:40 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > On 4/13/2015 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > Le 14 avr. 2015 08:04, "Stathis Papaioannou" a > écrit : > > > Certainly some theories of consciousness might not allow copying, but > > that cannot be a logical

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-04-15 4:53 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > On 4/14/2015 12:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > No, a miracle cannot be logically contradictory. God cannot make a >> married bachelor. >> > > Yes it can.. that's the whole point of what is a miracle and God. God is >

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-04-15 5:12 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > On 4/14/2015 9:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2015-04-14 18:40 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > >> On 4/13/2015 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> Le 14 avr. 2015 08:04, "Stathis Papaioannou&quo

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-04-15 9:19 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal : > > On 15 Apr 2015, at 08:33, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2015-04-15 5:12 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > >> On 4/14/2015 9:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >> 2015-04-14 18:40 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : &

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-04-15 9:35 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal : > > On 15 Apr 2015, at 00:15, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > I predict that I will win 1 million dollar by tomorrow. I know my >> prediction is correct because this will happen in one of the branches of >> the multi

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-04-15 12:23 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou : > > > On Wednesday, April 15, 2015, meekerdb wrote: >> >> But what would it mean to duplicate consciousness. It doesn't have a >> location in spacetime, so any two instances will be identical and hence >> only one by Leibniz's identity of indiscer

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-04-15 20:51 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > On 4/14/2015 11:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2015-04-15 4:53 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > >> On 4/14/2015 12:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> No, a miracle cannot be logically contradictory. God cannot make a >

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-04-15 20:55 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > On 4/14/2015 11:33 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2015-04-15 5:12 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > >> On 4/14/2015 9:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >> 2015-04-14 18:40 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : >

Re: For Bruce

2015-04-15 22:09 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > On 4/15/2015 2:05 AM, LizR wrote: > > On 14 April 2015 at 22:18, Kim Jones wrote: > >> >> > On 14 Apr 2015, at 11:24 am, LizR wrote: >> > >> > "This makes quanta into a particular case of qualia, being somehow >> sharable, and making physical reality a f

Re: For Bruce

Le 16 avr. 2015 00:18, "Kim Jones" a écrit : > > > > On 16 Apr 2015, at 6:12 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > For all you know what you believe is logical is not and you're deluded. > > > > Quentin > > I daresay, yes. > > S

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

Le 16 avr. 2015 01:04, "meekerdb" a écrit : > > On 4/15/2015 3:37 PM, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> .. >> Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it? >> >>> >>> > I can image a

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

2015-04-24 2:43 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > LizR wrote: > >> On 24 April 2015 at 09:54, meekerdb > meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: >> >> On 4/23/2015 1:03 AM, LizR wrote: >> >> The discussion was originally about step 3 in the comp argument. >> Obviously if we've moved onto somet

Re: Step 3 - one step beyond?

2015-04-24 22:33 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > On 4/24/2015 5:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > That seems odd to me. The starting point was that the brain was Turing >> emulable (at some substitution level). Which seems to suggest that >> consciousness (usually associated wi

Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

2015-04-24 23:07 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou : > > > On Friday, April 24, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> For some, its a conundrum, or in any case see it as a block to cloning, >> or a slam dunk into the trash bin of physics and philosophy.

Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

2015-04-25 0:29 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux : > > > 2015-04-24 23:07 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou : > >> >> >> On Friday, April 24, 2015, spudboy100 via Everything List < >> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >>> For some, its

Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

Le 25 avr. 2015 01:21, "Stathis Papaioannou" a écrit : > > > > On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >> 2015-04-24 23:07 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou : >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, April

Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

Le 25 avr. 2015 01:25, "Quentin Anciaux" a écrit : > > > Le 25 avr. 2015 01:21, "Stathis Papaioannou" a écrit : > > > > > > > > On Saturday, April 25, 2015, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> 201

Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

Le 25 avr. 2015 08:59, "meekerdb" a écrit : > > On 4/24/2015 4:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> Le 25 avr. 2015 01:25, "Quentin Anciaux" a écrit : >> > >> > >> > Le 25 avr. 2015 01:21, "Stathis Papaioannou" a

Re: God

2015-04-27 18:20 GMT+02:00 John Clark : > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > But computation is not an abstract idea it is a concrete > physical process, >>> Wrong. Computation can be concretized in any universal number, in arithmetic.

Re: God

2015-04-27 19:06 GMT+02:00 John Clark : > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > >> No, I'm saying I don't know. You claimed that you did know and gave a >>> reason for thinking so; and I'm saying your reasoning doesn't hold up.

Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

2015-04-27 19:18 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > On 4/27/2015 1:35 AM, LizR wrote: > > I think it goes without saying that the whole enterprise is mainly driven > by the profit motive (although of course there have been significant > injections from other areas, little things like the internet!) But the >

Re: God

2015-04-27 19:41 GMT+02:00 John Clark : > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: > > >> Because although we haven't discovered it yet maybe mathematics is >>> saying that particular physical process (computation that uses energy and &g

Re: God

2015-04-27 19:49 GMT+02:00 John Clark : > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: >> >> >>> Yes I said that, and it's a fact that to make computations real you DO >>> need to use energy and create entropy. >>> >>

Re: God

2015-04-27 21:53 GMT+02:00 John Clark : > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > Again you said you do know... I quote you again "computation can be made >> real, but not without using energy and increasing entropy, in other words >> not wi

Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

2015-04-27 22:25 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > On 4/27/2015 10:25 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2015-04-27 19:18 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > >> On 4/27/2015 1:35 AM, LizR wrote: >> >> I think it goes without saying that the whole enterprise is mainly driven >>

Re: God

Le 28 avr. 2015 01:56, "John Clark" a écrit : > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 5:12 PM, QUENTIN THE HORSE FUCKER wrote:: > >> > and so again you lie. > > > I knew this was coming, and so now I must humbly suggest you go fuck yourself and the horse you road in on. And so here we are again with the hors

Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

Le 28 avr. 2015 00:37, "meekerdb" a écrit : > > On 4/27/2015 2:28 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> I'm sorry, you were talking about resolution, not screen size. >> So what ? 4k screen are new in laptop (and anywhere else), but you can buy a 60" TV 4k s

Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

2015-04-28 7:59 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > On 4/27/2015 10:20 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > Le 28 avr. 2015 00:37, "meekerdb" a écrit : > > > > On 4/27/2015 2:28 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> > >> I'm sorry, you were talking about reso

Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

2015-04-28 8:37 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux : > > > 2015-04-28 7:59 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > >> On 4/27/2015 10:20 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> Le 28 avr. 2015 00:37, "meekerdb" a écrit : >> > >> > On 4/27/2015 2:28 PM, Quen

Re: Practicalities of Mind Uploading

2015-04-28 9:58 GMT+02:00 Russell Standish : > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:59:33PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > > > > No, I'm just saying they aren't available; and I think the in terms > > of screen real estate, a 17" 3840x2160 is actually a step down in > > functionality from a 17" 1920x1200. Sure i

Re: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan

2015-05-01 21:32 GMT+02:00 John Mikes : > Dear Samiya, > > Bruno may be a 'believer' - even if not entirely formally - but your > question is funny (in my views): > > * "Bruno, what is your concept of God? ..." * > > Accepting a 'God' concept in your (Quran extracted?) terms, such a concept > of

Re: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy

2015-05-01 23:18 GMT+02:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com>: > > -- > *From:* John Clark > *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com > *Sent:* Friday, May 1, 2015 1:14 PM > *Subject:* Re: SciAm predicts strong future for renew

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-04 8:28 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > On 5/3/2015 11:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> meekerdb wrote: >> >>> >>> Also "yes doctor" assumes that consciousness is retained when something >>> computationally equivalent is substituted; which is why Olympia and the MG >>> need to be counterfactually c

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-04 8:49 GMT+02:00 LizR : > On 4 May 2015 at 18:28, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 5/3/2015 11:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> meekerdb wrote: >>> Also "yes doctor" assumes that consciousness is retained when something computationally equivalent is substituted; which is why Olym

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-04 9:10 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> 2015-05-04 8:28 GMT+02:00 meekerdb > 11:02 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> meekerdb wrote: >> >> Also "yes doctor" assumes that consciousness is retai

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-04 9:22 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> 2015-05-04 9:10 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett > Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> 2015-05-04 8:28 GMT+02:00 meekerdb > <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net> On 5/3/2015 11:0

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-04 9:22 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux : > > > 2015-05-04 9:22 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > >> Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >>> 2015-05-04 9:10 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett >> Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> >>> 2015-05-04 8:28 GMT+02:00 m

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-04 9:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> On 4 May 2015 at 17:14, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> >>> The initial point that we were making was that copying at the quantum >>> level >>> of substitution is not possible, in principle. Accidental copies in >>> another >

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-04 9:31 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> >> For each computation, there exist an infinity of valid >> equivalent implementations, they're all computing the same >> thing, that class of

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-04 9:48 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> >> >> 2015-05-04 9:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett > <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>>: >> >> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On 4 May 2015 at 17:14, Bruce

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-04 9:51 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> >> >> 2015-05-04 9:31 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett > <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>>: >> >> >> Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >>

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-04 10:11 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> 2015-05-04 9:51 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett > The film is still physical, still running through a physical >> projector, so the physical supervenience thesis is not affected by >> the MGA.

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-04 10:24 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> 2015-05-04 10:11 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett > Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> 2015-05-04 9:51 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett >> mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> >>

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-04 10:27 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux : > > > 2015-05-04 10:24 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > >> Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >>> 2015-05-04 10:11 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett >> Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> >>> 2015-05-

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-04 12:04 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> 2015-05-04 10:24 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett > Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> But then again... you reject step 0, so why bother saying >> because of that step N is

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-04 12:53 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux : > > > 2015-05-04 12:04 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > >> Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >>> 2015-05-04 10:24 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett >> Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> >>> But then again... you r

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-04 19:12 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > On 5/4/2015 12:31 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2015-05-04 9:26 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > >> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >>> On 4 May 2015 at 17:14, Bruce Kellett wrote: >>> >>>> >&g

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

Le 5 mai 2015 00:08, "meekerdb" a écrit : > > On 5/4/2015 11:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, May 5, 2015, meekerdb wrote: >>> >>> On 5/4/2015 12:31 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>>> >>>> &

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

Le 5 mai 2015 01:17, "meekerdb" a écrit : > > On 5/4/2015 3:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> Le 5 mai 2015 00:08, "meekerdb" a écrit : >> > >> > On 5/4/2015 11:24 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >> >&

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

Le 5 mai 2015 07:26, "meekerdb" a écrit : > > On 5/4/2015 10:17 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> Le 5 mai 2015 01:17, "meekerdb" a écrit : >> > >> > On 5/4/2015 3:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >>

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

Le 5 mai 2015 07:38, "meekerdb" a écrit : > > On 5/4/2015 10:30 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> Le 5 mai 2015 07:26, "meekerdb" a écrit : >> > >> > On 5/4/2015 10:17 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >>

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-05 8:09 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > On 5/4/2015 11:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> >> > And under the "closest continuation" theory >> >> Again it's not relevant, FPI bears on all valid continuation of your >> current moment, n

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-05 9:08 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> 2015-05-05 8:09 GMT+02:00 meekerdb > It's not my theory. >> It's not mine either... do we have to have everything sort out before >> discussing ? You can't have any theory, bec

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-05 9:42 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> 2015-05-05 9:08 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett > Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> 2015-05-05 8:09 GMT+02:00 meekerdb > <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net> >> >>

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-06 1:24 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > On 5/5/2015 1:40 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2015-05-05 9:42 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > >> Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >>> 2015-05-05 9:08 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett >> Quentin Anciaux wrote: >&

Re: quadratic voting

2015-05-06 3:51 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > On 5/5/2015 5:34 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 5 May 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb wrote: > >> Where does the money go once it's bought votes? >> >> >> It's redistributed. So after the Koch brothers spend $889,000,000 in >> the next election to cast 29,816 votes,

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> 2015-05-06 1:24 GMT+02:00 meekerdb > It would be proof that your consciousness could be realized in a >> digital computer >> In the end it is just a program and the external world is

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-06 8:50 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux : > > > 2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > >> Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >>> 2015-05-06 1:24 GMT+02:00 meekerdb >> It would be proof that your consciousness could be realized in a >>> digi

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-06 9:19 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> 2015-05-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett > <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>>: >> >> Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> 2015-05-06 1:24 GMT+02:00 mee

Re: The dovetailer disassembled

2015-05-08 8:39 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > On 5/7/2015 11:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > If the string of bits is all that is required for conscious, then the > cable connected to the camera, or the optic nerve would be visually > conscious. But I think those bits need to be interpreted, by the Mars >

Re: My comments on "The Movie Graph Argument Revisited" by Russell Standish

Le 10 mai 2015 04:41, "LizR" a écrit : > > On 10 May 2015 at 12:08, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Sat, May 9, 2015 Russell Standish wrote: >> >>> >>> > including abstract systems. It is an abstract concept after all. >> >> >> No it is not! Computation is a physical process just like any other that

Re: My comments on "The Movie Graph Argument Revisited" by Russell Standish

Le 10 mai 2015 19:38, "meekerdb" a écrit : > > On 5/10/2015 12:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> Le 10 mai 2015 04:41, "LizR" a écrit : >> > >> > On 10 May 2015 at 12:08, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> >>

Re: My comments on "The Movie Graph Argument Revisited" by Russell Standish

Le 10 mai 2015 23:30, "meekerdb" a écrit : > > On 5/10/2015 12:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> Le 10 mai 2015 19:38, "meekerdb" a écrit : >> > >> > On 5/10/2015 12:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >&

Re: What does the MGA accomplish?

2015-05-13 17:49 GMT+02:00 David Nyman : > On 13 May 2015 at 14:53, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > I think it is a good summary, yes. Thanks! >> > > Building on that then, would you say that bodies and brains (including of > course our own) fall within the class of embedded features of the machine's >

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

2015-05-27 19:36 GMT+02:00 John Clark : > On Wed, May 27, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Citing Wolfram is a per-authority argument. That is not valid. >> > > But citing Bruno Marchal as an authority is valid?? If you say one thing > and Wolfram says another I'll put my money on Wolfram. Who wo

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

2015-06-10 13:00 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 10 Jun 2015, at 02:41, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 09 Jun 2015, at 15:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 09 Jun 2015, at 09:11, Bruce Kellett wrote: >

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

2015-06-10 13:40 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> >> >> 2015-06-10 13:00 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett > <mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>>: >> >> >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 10 Jun 20

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

2015-06-10 14:11 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> 2015-06-10 13:40 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett > Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> Then the computation will be in the mapping which is the >> interpreter... the r

Re: Notion of (mathematical) reason

2015-06-10 15:13 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett : > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> 2015-06-10 14:11 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett > Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> 2015-06-10 13:40 GMT+02:00 Bruce Kellett >> mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au&

Re: Has this come up before? Seems to qualify as a non-comp theory.

2015-06-23 18:00 GMT+02:00 John Clark : > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > consciousness may not need physical instantiation, which is where >> unfettered computationalism leads. > > > People like Bruno are the only ones who believe in "unfettered > computationalism", every

Re: Has this come up before? Seems to qualify as a non-comp theory.

2015-06-23 19:06 GMT+02:00 John Clark : > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> People like Bruno are the only ones who believe in "unfettered >>> computationalism", everybody else knows there is not one singl

Re: Has this come up before? Seems to qualify as a non-comp theory.

2015-06-23 19:35 GMT+02:00 John Clark : > > Quentin > ​The Horse Fucker wrote:​ > > ​> ​ >> So can you or not entertain the idea that matter is emergent of something >> else ? >> ​​ >> If you answer yes, that means your argument that you're making here is >> dull... and so that you lied... if you

Re: A riddle for John Clark

2015-06-24 18:49 GMT+02:00 John Clark : > ON Jun 24, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> A diary being a inanimate object doesn't notice anything. >> > > > > The diary contained the experience, like "I feel myself to be in one >> city". > > And it is not surprising that "you" feels that way becau

Re: A riddle for John Clark

Le 25 juin 2015 02:57, "John Clark" a écrit : > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> ​> ​ >> neither will contain "I see Moscow and I see Washington" > > > ​Yes, and because ​John Clark HAS BEEN DUPLICATED and there are no

Re: A riddle for John Clark

2015-06-25 17:31 GMT+02:00 John Clark : > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > >> ​>​ >> ​ because ​John Clark HAS BEEN DUPLICATED and there are now two John >> Clarks it would not be expected that just one interview would settle the >> quest

Re: A riddle for John Clark

Le 30 juin 2015 19:28, "Terren Suydam" a écrit : > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:59 AM, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >>> ​> ​ >>> Whether post-duplication-machine or post-many-worlds-duplication, "I" refers to the person having a subjective

Re: FPI & possible continuations

Le 20 juil. 2015 23:14, "Telmo Menezes" a écrit : > > Hi Terren, > > I won't try to answer but instead increase the scope of the question. Could it also apply to the past? Could there be many (infinite?) possible histories that lead to the current state of affairs, but until you learn about, say,

RE: A riddle for John Clark

Le 21 juil. 2015 01:05, "chris peck" a écrit : > > >> the question asked to him in Helsnki concerns his expectation of his experiences, and thus his experience content, which can only be "seeing one city among W and M", i.e. "W or M". > > nah. he can expect to have two mutually exclusive experienc

RE: A riddle for John Clark

Le 22 juil. 2015 01:11, "chris peck" a écrit : > > >> Two mutually exclusive first person experiences cannot be a first person experience. > > Obviously. if I could experience M and W simultaneously they would not be exclusive by definition . > > If anyone besides you thinks I would argue any diff

Re: A riddle for John Clark

Le 22 juil. 2015 22:15, "John Clark" a écrit : > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> ​> ​ >> Then under MWI, same thing you're garanteed to see all results > > > ​ > Yes, provided that "you" means somebody wh

RE: A riddle for John Clark

Le 23 juil. 2015 05:09, "chris peck" a écrit : > > Quentin > > > >> Then under MWI, same thing you're garanteed to see all results, so probability should also be one > > Deterministic branching leads to trouble rendering the idea of probability coherent. Go figure! Who would ever have guessed dete

RE: A riddle for John Clark

Le 23 juil. 2015 09:24, "chris peck" a écrit : > > Quentin > > > >> Is measuring spin up under MWI has a probability of one or 0.5 under MWI? > > we've done this sketch before...and John Clarke just did the same sketch with you hours ago...Why do you need things repeated to you so much? No he did

Re: A riddle for John Clark

Le 23 juil. 2015 17:58, "John Clark" a écrit : > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> ​> ​ >> No he did not. He >> ​[Quentin means John Clark. I think] ​ >> pretends probabilities do have meaning in MWI. When he says 0.5 w

Re: A riddle for John Clark

Le 23 juil. 2015 19:33, "John Clark" a écrit : > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> >>> > Actually ​John Clark "pretends" that half the John Clark's who say "I bet ​Quentin Anciaux will

Re: A riddle for John Clark

Le 23 juil. 2015 21:44, "John Clark" a écrit : > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > ​ >>> >>> ​>> ​ >>> Yes, after the duplication but before the door of the duplicating chamber ​is opened John Clark may have a hunc

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >