Re: on formally indescribable merde
Saey whaet?
Re: Belief Knowledge
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Brent Meeker wrote: A true belief that has a casual connection with the fact that makes it true. Knowledge is when predicted.
Acknowledgement
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- I'd like to post a quick followup to my own message to the list. Thank you Fred and Russell for your responses. I think the issues, for me, are these: (1) I am now subscribed twice, so I get all messages to the list twice -- and I receive three copies for those also CC'd to me. (2) One of my addresses can not post to the list -- but I do get the list software telling me that I can not post. (3) When one does post to the list, one does not receive a copy of his or her own post. (???) (4) No one ever responded to me publically or privately when I *thought* I had posted, so I assumed that either I was being ignored, or somehow my messages were not getting out (see #3). I have spoken with james.higgo@lombard in private messages, so I was sure at least there was someone out there. Anyway, I'll let ya'll go back to the discussion and I'll lurk until it picks up again. Thanks again for the confirmation that this thing is actually working! Scott -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBORkh+1pGPE+AF6qBAQEt8gQAmD4D+URxTYMzhLntQSoPmQLE3B5lAfQT HDUBmu83PQ6dp6XUVTtwAGvwPuKBSJHCKw7c4Xg/1oSq5YcRR6lIemfPWPR0ani7 MHZ4xQd3hDovenyRHpUtItHLiHa/QOJZGAMTAGlJ+tp2fBlVgBgYlmYkDvAb9tfr fqXUnfwG05c= =8f/u -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: this very moment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Wed, 3 May 2000, Higgo James wrote: 'Psychological time' is a concept of time, part of your current psychology. Occam would disapprove of assuming that psychological events are real events; assuming a hard, physical world when there is no need for one. I have re-subscribed to the list. Hopefully now I can post to it. Personally, I think there only needs to be difference ... because that will ensure that certain other aspects are also present. What's the point of this discussion, again? Scott ps: I'm interested in talking with people in direct messages with email. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBOQ/bqVpGPE+AF6qBAQHXwwQAtwtNdNCoW18AtZIFqdjU+QtSYpCkdNJ5 aPxhB1qm31ZWh9x63XgYnDsvpiIz8MxuzyTY4KQrdDUrnq277prcGoXiNp4UJnb8 tl9HO+Mw4mtz+iibBEB/HMIm7OGOg65bZFIZyT+xm8o/kJnvcYrsShfeesu6YEFO 8Pc1Czd0Xlc= =wsJa -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Leibniz Semantics
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A v B A - B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Just to help you guys out, the notation used here puts the 'result' operation in the middle column. The first column is A, the last column is B, and the middle column holds A or B in the first table and if A then B in the second table. This is different than how I have usually seen it displayed, where the result operation is in the rightmost column. That accounts for part of the confusion. *sigh* I was thinking... to myself: MAN! I'm really worse at this than I thought... since I couldn't figure out the rule to make the matrix work! sheesh. Scott
Re: this very moment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 15 May 2000, Jacques Mallah wrote: Another way to go is to consider an implementation of a computation, extended over time, as you. You can't tell which implementation you are just from the available information in an observer-moment. I strongly disagree with this statement. I certainly do believe this is possible, even if we aren't practiced at doing it (currently). Scott -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBOSERlVpGPE+AF6qBAQEwNQP/WycDg0mZqx3/J5RFsigygnPQSrf+R/K5 /Enx6JBgyjFnITC5pcfnIPggzH/tRJXfjn2kUWGzoGelD9srG6LyVW/c8wYmd8pk uCr2wqd6UHyTpe60F1eW50cefHw2OGdSiZDUHCXiCIz3aJOn7HyCHRvUXEFcL4qi R2RJt7bsq+w= =5rzs -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Proof/insistance of multiverse/plenitude?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- First, let me state that I am not a scientist that deals with this stuff -- so please forgive me if I seem naive or non-technical... but I have a question: Why are some people so adament about a plenitude or a multiverse ... what proof is there that is so convincing that the defenders of this faith are unwilling to discuss anything else? Scott -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBORpvWlpGPE+AF6qBAQEJrAQAkREGtCtxhYPHLuxWCDnrDQAG+GtA5Ypq t7n98XosZwaPVxbYUWQ7I4tU1raiIVD6kkK0b0drqTDQtlUUUkCYacBN23GX0/k5 vcOzHkqMj4YCddsipS3NdFq+5zUyf0bdPPL7nWFyC3Byw8bL1WQDBH8xD5TpvVd9 khGtm0Ozd+g= =1B50 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Consciousness schmonscioisness
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, John Mikes wrote: Scott First: the past tense is objectionable unless the answer is negative (=Yes, it didn't). I don't approach my choice of and use of language by choosing words that are continuously defendable from a certain perspective. That is, I am not scientific in my approach. Actually, my statement seems to indicate that I believe that time does exist. It wasn't meant to be objectionable, but rather a reference back to trying to get a solid answer from J.H. -- to which he always responds that he doesn't have the time (to explain to me why time doesn't exist). I try to gather what I can from this list -- although there appear to be so many divergent beliefs, that I have a difficult time truly extracting anything, let alone everything. Back to the poiint: I'm a little crazier -- I simply think everything can't happen all at once, hence there has to be (degrees of) difference. I beg to differ: it is about the level of same. If you consider a same I talk about this to various people who probably don't care to hear about it. But, to me, one can't discuss levels of sameness to the same extent that one can with difference... therefore I approach it from the perspective of difference -- but we are probably talking about very similar concepts from slightly different perspectives. not duplicate THIS and so that difference is information. We usually deal in incomplete information, by incomplete modeling in our thinking. So Scott may be right: we CANNOT compare (absolutely) same differences. Scott, is this what you pointed at? John Mikes Yes. Now to offend everyone... in my own simplistic method, I am programming a system that extracts information through difference. It is a pet project of mine. Whether it turns out to be everything, or not, is not important. I simply want it to turn out to be something. I am simply here, and elsewhere, looking to either find additional insight or anything that might shoot down my theories/ideas or cause me to alter them. I'd love to talk with anyone, via private emails, about this programming project. Scott ps: AI is alive, if is believes that it is. AI exists because it believes that it does.
