Hi Russel,
Interleaving some comments...
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Everything-List List everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: Artificial Philosophizing
On Thu,
Hi Marc,
I share with you a feeling that there is
something missing in the static picture of mathematical truth as painted in
Platonism; there is no fundamental sense of where Becoming originates. It has
been a perpetual problem for Platonistto explain how to derive our sense
of change
Hello All,
Pardon the comment, but is it not obvious to all that Mathematics is a
realm of which faithful representations of our Physical universe span an
infinitesimal portion? Even those of us that do not swallow the sweet Blue
Pill of Platonia can see this. ;-)
Onward!
Stephen
-
Dear Bruno,
As for a name, following the comments of
George and John, what about "I^st and 3^rd Person aspects in Computational
Logics"?
Onward!
Stephen
Dear Jesse, Stathis, Bruno et al,
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 4:41 AM
Subject: RE: Goldilocks world
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
George Levy writes:
Along the line of
Dear Bruno,
Are you claiming that the communicable part is to the non-communicable
part as the classical is to the quantum? The Non-cloning aspect of QM and
the copyability of the classical seems to be implied. Is this intentional?
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From:
Hi James and Russell,
Could a middle ground be found in the notion that something is a
differentiated piece of Nothing, where Everything (1st person notion) and
Nothing (3rd person notion) are one and the same? Violations of the notion
of conservation only seem to obtain when we conflate
against
which it is distinguished; there is no other in Nothingness.
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: contention
-strings have no
ability to do anything by themselves (by definition!) and thus appeals to
their existence are vacuous.
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday
our notion of a "dimension" flow from linear independence, like that of
vectors? How does one define the notion of a "basis" in this computational
dimension?
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From:
Bruno Marchal
To: Stephen Paul King
Cc: everything-lis
Hi George,
It seems to me that the notion of "storing"
and communication 1 bit explicitly requires some form of stable structure over
multiple queries. Does this not lead to the requirement of some form of
physicality, a physicality that is epiphenomena at best in the ideal monism
Hi Tom,
I second Russell on this and would add that Leibniz's question why this
and not some other (or whatever the exact quote is) really bring the
question to a head. I would also point out that the so called initial
conditions and fine tuning problem is a version of this.
Personally, I
Dear John,
It is refreshing to see that some people are willing to admit to the
implicit solipsism that is at the heart of everyone's notion of being in
the world. ;-) We must understand that *all* that we have access to is 1st
person and any 3rd person representation is merely an ansatz
Hi Hal,
After glancing over that paper it seems to me that Badagnani does not
distinguish between classical and quantum forms of information. I strongly
suspect that that is the reason why he thinks his idea would work.
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney
Hi Ben,
Could it be that black holes do not destroy information but merely
randomize it, ala decoherence? For a hint see:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410172
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent:
]
To: 'Stephen Paul King' [EMAIL PROTECTED];
everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 12:35 AM
Subject: RE: Neutrino shield idea
Thanks for the paper relating to detection of low energy neutrinos.
However, according to my model, neutrinos are very, very high energy
photons (off
Dear John,
This theory, as far as I have researched it, has problem with Eotvos
experiements that consider particles that are sensitive to the weak force,
such as radioactive elements. Not all particles interact with neutrinos,
e.g. are sensituve to the weak force, and thus there should be
Dear Hal,
It seems to me that a global ordered sequencing would be equivalent to
Newton's idea of absolute time. As I see it all one needs is a local
sequence of events - ala Leibnitz' time is an order of sucession, and some
thing that acts as a local measure of change. Together these make
Howdy!
I friend of mine has worked on a related idea that might help this
inverstigation. Please see:
http://davidwoolsey.com/physics/ideas/neutrinoscope/index.html
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: John Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
PROTECTED]
To: John Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Stephen Paul King' [EMAIL PROTECTED];
everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: Neutrino shield idea
Neutrinos are fermions with spin 1/2. Photons are bosons with spin
0. This is about as chalk and cheese as you can
Hi Russell and Friends,
I just ran across the following post and
thought that you might find it interesting. Any comments?
Onward!
Stephen
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:32:00 + (UTC), in
sci.physics.research[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The "Minkowski" or "inertial" vacuum state seen in an
Dear Marc,
Is this proposed third kind of cause
similar to the notion of Implication in logic?
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From:
Marc
Geddes
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 4:36
AM
Subject: Re: More than one
Dear Friends,
Does it truly make sense to assume that Existence can have a Beginning?
We are not talking here, I AFAIK, about the beginning of our observed
universe as we can wind our way back in history to a Big Bang Event Horizon,
but this event itself must have some form of antecedent
Hi Bruno,
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: YD is the driving motor of the Everett interpretation of QM?
On 23 Aug 2005, at 18:08
Hi Bruno,
How is this the case? YD requires that the mind, or some token of
subjective awareness, can be faithfully represented in terms of TM, or some
other equivalent that can be implemented in a finite number of steps in a
physically realizable machine. It is my belief that such TM are
Dear Bruno and Godfrey,
It seems to me a proof that YD is false be equivalent to a proof that a
Machine X fails the Turing Test! Is this nonsense about falsifying YD not a
requirement that we prove a negative proposition?
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL
Hi Lee,
First I would like to thank you for working hard on this question. In
doing this you are challenging me to refine my ideas and explanations and
thus you are helping me a great deal. That being said, I would like to
refute your common sense Realism and show that it is missing the
Hi Colin,
Clap, Clap, Clap, Clap! Very good!
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:40 PM
Subject: RE: subjective reality
From: Lee Corbin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August
Hi Lee,
Just one point while I have some time and mental clarity. Can a Realist
accept that a wholly independent world out there exists and existed
before he did and yet can admit that the particular properties of this
independent world are not *definite* prior to the specification of a
Hi Lee,
I would like for you to consider that we should not take OMs as
objective processes but the result of objective processes. I shudder
every time I read of notions that imply some kind of knowledge of reality
in itself!
How is it that we simply can not seem to acknowledge what we
Hi Hal,
Thank you very much for you work in writing this review and commentary
of the Maulding paper. I have not read it yet, but would like to ask some
questions and interject some comments, even if I end up looking like a fool.
;-)
Interleaving
- Original Message -
From:
I thought this article might be useful!
Stephen
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/objectivity/bogusskepticism.htm
The Objectivity of Science
Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Skepticism
by Rochus Boerner
The progress of science depends on a finely tuned balance between
open-mindedness
Hi Russel,
A possibly related question. Given your definition of events and OMs,
does it not seem that they complement each other, assuming that events have
more quatities associated, such as 4-momentum-energy?
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL
Hi Saibal,
Let me add a question to your insightful post. Could we consider the
hardware: itself to be a simulation as well?
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Aditya Varun Chadha [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Lee Corbin
[EMAIL PROTECTED];
Dear Jesse and Lee,
I must interject!
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 9:32 AM
Subject: RE: What We Can Know About the World
Lee Corbin wrote:
snip
[LC]
The disagreement I
Dear Aditya,
I find your attempt to reconcile the arguments to be very good! I most
appresiate that you point out that our notion of Realism must include both
the invariants with respect to point of view and an allowance for novelity.
I do agree that we could use a FAQ defining the
Hi Lee,
I am trying to speak up for Realism! I feel your exasperation! The
problem is that our language is demonstrably NOT any good at giving us a
basic set of tools to make sense of our common world outside their skins!
The closer we look at this world of ours, including what is inside
Hi Hal,
Here is Scott's responce.
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Scott Aaronson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: what relation do mathematical models have with reality?
Hi Stephen,
It's
Dear Lee,
Are you the continuer of Niels Bohr? Seriously! The argument that your
making is very similar to the argument that lead to the Copenhagen
Interpretation. ;-) This is not a crtitisism, you are making some very good
points.
My problem is that I agree with both you and Russell
Hi Aditya,
I do not see anything in your reasoning that I would disagree with. ;-)
It seems that you subscribe to a concrete interpretation of mathematics,
which is one that I take on occasion. I merely wish to comprehend the ideas
of those that take a Pythagorean approach to mathematics;
Hi Brent,
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: what relation do mathematical models have with reality?
On 22-Jul-05,Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Brent,
Ok, I am rapidly loosing the
Dear Hal and Wei Dai,
One question: Does it not make sense that if there did exist an instance
of a P=NP computation within our physical universe that Nature would not
have found a way to implement it widely? The fact that the folding of
proteins, a known NP complete problem, takes a
Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: is induction unformalizable?
On 22-Jul-05, you wrote:
Dear Brent,
Could you name some examples? In the real world,
computations obey the laws
in the present. To meddle with its order is to conjure up
paradox. Reality can not be like that.
Best Regards;
Chris. :)
From: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
CC: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension
Dear Chris,
A the risk of being a smart-alek, you answer your own question! The
difference between Spatial and Temporal dimensions is that the former is
such that movements can occur that are reversible without any involvement
with any kind of thermodynamic laws. Temporal movements are
Hi Bruno,
It is obvious to anyone that understand the notion of numbers because
this notion of bigger than or greater than is enshrined in the notion of
the succession of numbers. My question involves situations that can not be
faithfully described only using a number. Are all relations
Dear Russel,
Any ideas on the 3rd person aspect? Are you assuming that that
commutability or non-commutativity of observables is fixed a priori?
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc
is the quantum eraser:
http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/Walborn.pdf
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: scerir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED];
everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: Noncommutability
Esteemed Prof. Standish,
Thank you for that correction. ;-) But you are missing the point that I
am trying to make here! :_(
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com; Lee Corbin [EMAIL
Dear Chris, I hope to
be able to convince you that the ideas that you express below do not yield a
coherent narrative. But you must make up your own mind. There are so many
assumptions being made that must be reconsidered... What is your
background?- Original Message - From:
"chris
Dear Tom,
I do not understand how you arrived at that conclusion! I am arguing
that Existence - the Dasein of Kant - is independent of space-time;
space-time is secondary. I would like to better undertand your idea being
as (roughly) the integral of change, and change as the derivative of
Dear Johnathan,
I find this idea to be very appealing! It seesm to imply that
consciousness per say has more to do with the attractor in state space
that any particular tableaux of neutron firings.
This, of course, would not fit well with the material eliminativists to
be forced to
Dear Bruno,
The duality that I am considering is that proposed by Vaughan Pratt. It
is NOT a substance dualism. It is more a process dualism. Please see the
ratmech paper for an explanaition. It is found here:
http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf
Dear Chris,
Thank you for this post! Interleaving...
- Original Message -
From: chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension
Hi Stephen;
I
Dear Hal,
Please forgive my delay in replying.
- Original Message -
From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers
Hi Stephen:
At 03:03 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
Dear Hal,
Which is primitive
Dear Hal,
Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming?
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers
Hi Lee:
At 09:47 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote:
snip
Hi Lee,
To split a hair... ;-)
- Original Message -
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 9:47 PM
Subject: The Time Deniers
snip
I am still at the point where I cannot quite imagine how a
huge nest of bit strings (say all
Hi Pete,
- Original Message -
From: Pete Carlton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything-List everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers
On Jul 6, 2005, at 9:08 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
There is a huge difference in kind
-
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 4:23 AM
Subject: Re: How did he get his information?
Le 03-juil.-05, à 06:55, Stephen Paul King a écrit :
Charlatan, maybe...
I have discovered that *many
Hi Norman,
Who gave this guy a Doctorate? That webpage appears to be merely an
advertisement for a book.
I think that your question is more important that the ramblings of Dr.
Raj!
How does anyone get information? Does the acquisition of information
always take some form of work?
Hi Norman,
On a lark I Googled and found:
http://www.igcar.ernet.in/igc2004/balbio.htm
His specializations include materials characterization, testing and
evaluation using nondestructive evaluation methodologies, materials
development and performance assessment and technology management.
Dear Chris,
Does it not seem like we should trust our intuitions with regards to
the questions we ask, and trust the facts when it comes to our beliefs?
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Dear Lee, and Stathis,
I have been pondering the various threads discussing OMs and
continuity requirements and have a couple of questions.
- Original Message -
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:04 PM
Subject: RE:
Hi Chris,
Welcome! I look forward to your posts. ;-)
BTW, I have neglected to post my own Joining statement, so let me
introduce myself. I am a self-taught student of philosophy of science,
specializing on the Problems of Time and Consciousness. I somewhat follow
Chalmers' ideas on
Dear Lee,
Are you familiar with any of the experiments that have been performed
regarding quantum counterfactuals or null measurements? It turns out
that the fact that some particular measure *was not made* counts just as
much, and thus affects the results of a measurement, of an actual
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED];
everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: Witnesses, Observer Moments and Memories of a Past
At 10:31 PM 6/28/2005, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Lee,
Are you familiar with any of the experiments
Dear Richard,
Let me follow up on your suggestion: Assuming a personality is made up
of multiple modules,does it necessarily follow that a hidden observer
exist as a seperate entiry, or could it be that the usual single personality
results from an entrainment (the modules become like
New Agers? Few of us on this list believe in stuff like ESP, the only
exceptions I know of are rmiller and Stephen Paul King. Most of us believe
in a completely reductionist view of how the brain produces intelligent
behavior (ie we think a sufficiently detailed simulation of a brain would
behave just
Dear Joanthan,
- Original Message -
From: Jonathan Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Stephen Paul King' [EMAIL PROTECTED];
everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:14 AM
Subject: RE: Dualism and the DA
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Pardon the intrusion, but in your
Dear Jonathan,
- Original Message -
From: Jonathan Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Stephen Paul King' [EMAIL PROTECTED];
everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:15 PM
Subject: RE: Dualism
snip
[SPK]
The same kind of mutual constraint that exist between a
given
Dear Jonathan,
Pardon the intrusion, but in your opinion does every form of dualism
require that one side of the duality has properties and behaviors that are
not constrained by the other side of the duality, as examplified by the idea
of randomly emplaced souls?
The idea that all
Dear Hal and Bruno,
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 3:02 AM
Subject: Re: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
Le 05-juin-05, à 05:53, Hal Finney a écrit
Dear Stathis,
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...
snip
It is true that nature is quantum mechanical rather than
Dear Lee,
- Original Message -
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: EverythingList everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 12:20 AM
Subject: Functionalism and People as Programs
Stephen writes
I really do not want to be a stick-in-the-mud here, but what do we
Dear R.,
You make a very good point, one that I was hoping to communicate but
failed. The notion of making copies is only coherent if and when we can
compare the copied produce to each other. Failing to be able to do this,
what remains? Your suggestion seems to imply that precognition,
Dear Lee and Stathis,
I really do not want to be a stick-in-the-mud here, but what do we base
the idea that copies could exist upon? What if I, or any one else's 1st
person aspect, can not be copied? If the operation of copying is impossible,
what is the status of all of these thought
Hi Jonathan,
Should we not expect Platonia to be Complete?
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Jonathan Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Everything-List' everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 1:30 PM
Subject: RE: White Rabbit vs. Tegmark
Brent: I doubt that the
Dear Russell and Friends,
Having given a talk on this book with my friend David Woolsey, I would
agree with you and add that it seems that Tipler has, as many others in the
scientific community and they grow long in the tooth, realized the reality
of their own mortality and have tried to
Dear Jesse,
Hear Hear! Excellent post reminding us of the value of lists such as
this one.
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: Many
Dear Lee,
Are we not dancing around the Turing Test here?
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: EverythingList everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 2:23 PM
Subject: RE: Nothing to Explain about 1st Person C!
Bruno writes
Do you
Hi Lee,
I see that you have not yet experienced the wonders of non-well founded
set theory! Let me point you to the first paper that I read that started me
down this road:
http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/pw/papers/math1.ps
I hope you can view Postscript files. Let me know if otherwise.
he says . . . there is
just no answer to the big WHY. Stephen Paul King says it, maybe more
rigorously, when he says, Existence, itself, can not be said to require
an
explanation for such would be a requirement that there is a necessitate
prior to which Existence is dependent upon.
Norman Samish
Dear Jonathan,
Non-separateness and identity are not the same thing! Your argument
against dualism assumes that the duals are somehow separable and
non-mutually dependent and thus lacking a linking mechanism dualism fails as
a viable theory. On the other hand, once we see the flaw in the
rriducible Category of Automorphisms, and not Existence
in-itself.
My words are ill-posed here, I
apologize.
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From:
Joao
Leao
To: Stephen Paul King
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
; everything-list@eskimo.com ; [EMAIL PROTECTE
of Norman's statement here:
I think the big WHY must be an unanswerable question from a scientific
standpoint, and that Leahy must be correct when he says . . . there is
just no answer to the big WHY. Stephen Paul King says it, maybe more
rigorously, when he says, Existence, itself, can not be said
Dear Jonathan,
Non-separateness and identity are not the same! Your argument against
dualism assumes that the duals are somehow separable and thus, lacking a
linking mechanism, fails as a viable theory. On the other hand, once we see
the flaw in the assumption that we are making, that Body
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jonathan Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: What do you lose if you simply accept...
Dear Jonathan,
A mental fiction indeed, but one that we can not just imagine away
Dear Bruno,
Your claim reminds me of the scene in the movie Matrix: Reloaded where
Neo deactivates some Sentinels all the while believing that he is Unplugged.
This leads to speculations about matrix in a matrix, etc.
http://www.thematrix101.com/reloaded/meaning.php#mwam
There is still
Dear Johathan,
I am trying to address the point of how we consider the interactions and
communications between minds, simulated or otherwise. I do not, question the
idea that simulated minds would be indistinguishable from real minds,
especially from a 1st person view. I am asking about how
Dear Stathis,
In a phrase, I would loose choice. What you are asking me is to give up
any hope of understanding how my sense of being-in-the-world is related to
any other phenomena in the world of experience and instead to just blindly
believe some claim. Are we so frustrated that we will
Dear Stathis,
Thank you for reading the paper in its entirety. Pratt's idea is very
subtle but the difference between the form of dualism that he is explaining
is very different from Descartes'. Pratt is considering Mind and body as
process, not substance. It is the difference between a
Dear Stathis,
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:28 AM
Subject: Re: Tipler Weighs In
Dear Stephen,
Pearce spends considerable time in his thesis discussing
Dear Stathis,
Two points: I am pointing out that the non-interactional idea of
computation and any form of monism will fail to account for the necessity
of 1st person viewpoints. I am advocating a form of dualism, a process
dualism based on the work of Vaughan Pratt.
PROTECTED]
To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED];
everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: Olympia's Beautiful and Profound Mind
Le 15-mai-05, à 15:40, Stephen Paul King a écrit :
Two points: I am pointing out that the non
Dear Lee,
Let me use your post to continue our offline conversation here for the
benefit of all.
The idea of a computation, is it well or not-well founded? Usually TMs
and other finite (or infinite!) state machines are assume to have a well
founded set of states such that there are no
Dear Stathis,
I would like to thank you for pointing this out, even thought it should
be obvious to anyone that has any thoughts about consciousness. Any model
that we propose must consider a very wide range of consciousness, including
the insanities, and maybe, just maybe, it might make
to ANY entity, not justhumans.I amhappy with the
possibility of being wrong.
Stephen
- Original Message -
From:
John M
To: Stephen Paul King ; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of
immortality
Stephen
Dear Norman,
You make a very interesting point (the
first point) and I think that we could all agree upon it as it isbut
I notice that you used two words that put a sizable dent in the COMP idea:
"snapshot" and "precisely represented". It seems that we might all agree that we
would be
Dear Stathis,
It is exactly this seeming requirement that we accept COMP by faith and
demand no possibility of empirical falsification that troubles me the most.
For me, a theory must make predictions that might be confirmed to be
incorrect otherwise all one has, at best, is the internal
or
Oranges and I still have had no explanation of how one bitstring can
interact with no kind of change and permanence in change possible.
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Brian Scurfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com; 'Stephen Paul King'
[EMAIL
701 - 800 of 937 matches
Mail list logo
