On 8/24/2012 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But normally the holographic principle should be extracted from comp before this can be
used as an argument here.
Normally?? The holographic principle was extracted from general relativity and the
Bekenstein bound. I don't know in what sense it
On 8/24/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And those theorem are non constructive, meaning that in the world of inference inductive
machine, a machine capable of being wrong is already non computably more powerful than
an error prone machine.
There's something wrong with that sentence. An
On 8/24/2012 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote:
Quantum mechanics includes true subjective randomness already, so by your
own standards nothing that physically exists can be emulated.
That's QM+collapse, but the collapse is not well defined,
It is well
On 8/24/2012 11:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/24/2012 11:33 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2012 7:05 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
...due to the law of conjugate bisimulation identity:
A ~ A = A ~ B ~ C ~ B ~ A = A ~ B ~ A
this is retractable path independence: path
On 8/25/2012 1:53 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/25/2012 2:41 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2012 11:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/24/2012 11:33 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2012 7:05 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
...due to the law of conjugate bisimulation identity:
A ~ A = A ~ B ~ C ~ B
On 8/23/2012 1:04 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
The hardest part of the mind/body problem is figuring out exactly what the
mind/body
problem is
An explanation on how consciousness arises in the body.
and what solving it is supposed to mean.
Know how consciousness works and how it
On 8/25/2012 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We do things because of the laws of nature OR we do not do things because of the laws
of nature, and if we do not then we are random.
We might do things because the laws of arithmetic. With comp Nature is not in the
ontology. You are assuming
On 8/25/2012 2:26 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 25.08.2012 22:25 meekerdb said the following:
On 8/23/2012 1:04 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
The hardest part of the mind/body problem is figuring out exactly
what the mind/body
problem is
An explanation on how consciousness arises
On 8/26/2012 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Aug 2012, at 12:35, Jason Resch wrote:
I agree different implementations of intelligence have different capabilities and
roles, but I think computers are general enough to replicate any intelligence (so long
as infinities or true randomness
On 8/28/2012 11:08 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi Brent,
Until there is a precise explanation of what this phrase generation by the UD
might mean, we have just a repeated meaningless combinations of letters appearing on our
computer monitors.
Seems pretty precise to me. The UD executes
On 8/29/2012 5:18 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/29/2012 2:17 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/28/2012 11:08 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi Brent,
Until there is a precise explanation of what this phrase generation by the UD
might mean, we have just a repeated meaningless combinations
On 8/29/2012 5:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is
intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and
take account of its debts and merits with others.
But this is more
On 8/29/2012 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery hidden by Bush
senior) but it is only since this has been rediscovered in Spain, that some media talk
about it, but it does not yet make the headline.
How many people died of cancer
But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words. That's why something
having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot, something that can act
wordlessly in it's environment. Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on
on top of subconscious
,
that is moral from the beginning..
2012/8/29 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words. That's
why
something having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot,
something that can act
On 8/29/2012 9:02 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Research on this is ambiguous and ideologically freighted, but you put your finger on
the right spot with: though maybe not as much. Because given all the toxic compounds
from burning carbon based plant matter, the question is why the smoking
But there are no infinities at any give state - only potential infinities. Of course that
also implies that you are never complete, since at any given state in the UD there still
remain infinitely many computations that will, in later steps, go through the states
instantiating you.
Brent
On
Original Message
FYI --
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2-turing-machine-gives-order-to-chaotic-penrose-universe.html
New Scientist
Physics Math
Turing machine gives order to chaotic Penrose universe
15:23 29 August 2012 by Jacob Aron
A theoretical computer
On 8/29/2012 2:15 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent wrote:
/I can think of no plausible mechanism whereby cannabis could selectively affect cancer
cells./
/
/Sorry, this is no argument. You (or any later chap) may learn later-on knowledge beyond
our present inventory.
And that would be a good
On 8/29/2012 7:40 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
hmmm, my interpretation is that in platonia, all computations, all the
potential infinities of computations, have the same ontological
status. Meaning, there's nothing meaningful that can be said with
regard to any particular state of the UD - one can
Bruno and some others on the list may find this inverse equation solver amusing
http://mrob.com/pub/ries/index.html
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Wouldn't that alternative be one in which there are only a finite number of possible
persons?...e.g. materialism.
Bren
On 8/30/2012 7:49 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
That's true, it is not a contradiction. However, from a Bayesian
perspective one must favor the alternative that gives one's a
On 8/30/2012 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 17:16, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Thinking implies a progression of time. So perhaps it is equally important to
define time.
In the computationlist theory, the digital discrete sequence 0, s(0), s(s(0)) ... is
enough, notably to
On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:
From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a
distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what I do and what I hope
other people will do in their interactions
=pcI5tWYr6do
In this case it appears that the main effect of the cannabis was as anti-nausea, which of
course helps to cure the cancer, while there were a half-dozen other drugs that might have
killed the cancer cells.
Brent
Bruno
On 29 Aug 2012, at 17:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/29/2012
call moral what is: moral.
2012/8/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:
From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a
distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what I do
On 8/30/2012 2:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:47:19 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
There is a human nature, and therefore a social nature with invariants.
in computational terms, the human mind is a collection or hardwired
programs.
codified by
On 8/30/2012 4:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 7:38:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 8/30/2012 2:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Computational analogies can only provide us with a toy model of morality.
Should I
eat my children, or should I order a pizza?
On 8/30/2012 5:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:19:32 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
If morals didn't exist, why would we choose to invent them? What possible
purpose
could be served by some additional qualitative layer of experience on top
of the
perfectly
On 8/30/2012 6:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:00:12 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 8/30/2012 5:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:19:32 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
If morals didn't exist, why would we choose to invent them?
On 8/31/2012 1:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 18:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/30/2012 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 17:16, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Thinking implies a progression of time. So perhaps it is equally important to define
time
On 8/31/2012 1:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:
From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a
distinction. Moral is what I expect
On 8/31/2012 10:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Uruguay, Armenia, El Salvador, Botswana, Peru, Columbia, Mexico, Albania, Belize,
Uganda, Guatemala, have capitalist economies while Sweden is socialist and China is
Communist.
But Sweden isn't socialist - the government doesn't own the major means
Original Message
The biological advantages of being awestruck:
http://vimeo.com/46264514
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To
On 9/1/2012 7:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, that is for the first person time order, and thus for the physical time too, as
the whole physics emerges from the first person plural indeterminacy. But to define
computation, we need a thrid person time, and for this one, as the UD illustrates,
On 9/1/2012 7:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Aug 2012, at 19:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/31/2012 1:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:
From experience I know people
On 9/2/2012 5:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, September 1, 2012 12:43:50 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
/Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and shaming...the
deep and
violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the banal evils of game
theory.
On 9/2/2012 5:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That's all I mean morals; having values about your own actions so that you can
recognize that sometimes you do stupid or bad things - by your own standards - but
which are not unethical because they have little or no effect on other people.
OK. May be
On 9/2/2012 8:02 AM, John Clark wrote:
Neither can I, but I can argue that everything is causal or everything is not
causal.
You mean, ...or not everything is causal.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this
On 9/2/2012 9:09 AM, John Clark wrote:
6) Evolution has no foresight: This is the most important reason of all.
A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give you a
prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet, but you must do it while
the engine is running,
On 9/2/2012 12:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, September 2, 2012 3:28:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/2/2012 9:09 AM, John Clark wrote:
6) Evolution has no foresight: This is the most important reason of all.
A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an
On 9/3/2012 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
3) It's also probably why taxing the rich ultimnately doesn''t work,
it lowers everybody's income to fit the curve. A nd why trickle
down doesn't work.
I do agree with this. The leftist idea of distributing richness cannot work for many
reasons. But
On 9/3/2012 1:51 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Look at the way the Universe behaves, it's quantized, it's made of
pixels. Space is quantitized, matter is quantitized, energy is
quantitized, everything is made of individual pixels
That's way overstated. The evidence is against space being
On 9/3/2012 9:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Even if there were evidence of quantized space, it could not be distinguished from
evidence of quantized synchronization of detection.
All theories of discrete space proposed so far predict that there will be a slight
dependence of the speed of
On 9/4/2012 1:12 PM, John Mikes wrote:
*//*
It is a 'trap' to falsify the adequate taxing of the 'rich' as a *leftist attempt to
distributing richness*. It does not include more than a requirement for THEM to pay
their FAIR share - maybe more than the not-so-rich layers (e.g. higher use of
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as discussed, assume that
the information content is exactly copyable.
Not exactly. Only sufficiently accurately to maintain your consciousness.
This is not qubits that are involved... The
On 9/4/2012 9:37 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Russel,
In Craig's defense. When did ontological considerations become a matter of
contingency? You cannot Choose what is Real!
But you choose what is real in your theory of the world. Then you see how well your
theory measures up. The
On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as discussed, assume that
the information content is exactly copyable.
Not exactly. Only sufficiently
On 9/5/2012 5:17 AM, Craig wrote:
The test that I would use would be, as I have mentioned, to have someone be
walked off of their brain one hemisphere at a time, and then walked back on.
Ideally this process would be repeated several times for different
durations. That is the only test
On 9/5/2012 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Put in another way: there is no ontological hardware. The hardware and wetware are
emergent on the digital basic ontology (which can be described by numbers or combinators
as they describe the same computations and the same object: you can prove the
On 9/5/2012 10:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:25:02 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
javascript:
wrote:
But you couldn't realise you felt different if the part of your brain
On 9/5/2012 10:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:32:21 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
javascript:
wrote:
I find that the least plausible explanation. It means that if a billion
people
On 9/5/2012 11:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Intention is not magic and doesn't need hypothetical permission to exist. If your words
are random ricochets of quantum radioactive decay or thermodynamic anomalies, then they
are meaningless noise. You can't account for them because any accounting
On 9/6/2012 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Consciousness does not arise. It is not in space, nor in time. Its local content,
obtained by differentiation, internally can refer to time and space,
Even if it is not *in* spacetime, my consciousness seems to depend on some particular
localized
On 9/6/2012 11:52 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
A too much powerful God leads to inconsistency.
What if reality does not always obey the laws of logic? What if reality is sometimes
inconsistent?
This is a confusion of levels. Logic is rules about truth preservation in declarative
On 9/6/2012 4:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/6/2012 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 18:15, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Perhaps wrongly, I think of the world of monads as the virtual world.
Virtual means simulated by a computer, in computer science.
It has
On 9/7/2012 1:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.09.2012 21:03 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/6/2012 11:52 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
A too much powerful God leads to inconsistency.
What if reality does not always obey the laws of logic? What if
reality is sometimes inconsistent
An amusing example of computation
--- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120907082027.htm
Towards Computing With Water Droplets: Superhydrophobic Droplet Logic ScienceDaily (Sep.
7, 2012) ? Researchers in Aalto University have developed a new concept for computing,
using water
On 9/7/2012 8:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Platonism (or mathematical realism) is the majority viewpoint of modern mathematicians.
In a survey of mathematicians I know it is an even division. Of course they are all
methodological Platonists, but not necessarily philosophical ones.
On 9/8/2012 12:38 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.09.2012 20:30 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/7/2012 1:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.09.2012 21:03 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/6/2012 11:52 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
A too much powerful God leads to inconsistency.
What
On 9/8/2012 10:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 11:12 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno makes a valid point, that
On 9/10/2012 12:30 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
What would you say is the reason for:
1. The anthropological universality of spiritual concepts
The fear of death.
2. That
On 9/10/2012 12:45 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
A better question to John would be: explain where consciousness and
universes come
from
Paraphrasing Mark Twain: Drawing on my fine command of the English
On 9/10/2012 12:50 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
This paper of an evolutionist scientific denounces the mytification of
Darwin, the spread of false claims that enhance his figure and even
the creation of a physical temple around these myths.
On 9/10/2012 7:57 AM, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Sep 2012, at 16:08, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:22, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:
Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by
Having obfuscated the meaning of God as much as possible, let's see if we can also
fuzz-up the meaning of believe in - because, above all, we really really want to be able
to say We believe in God. and we want to be able to say You really believe in God. and
if you think you don't it is just
On 9/10/2012 12:50 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
This paper of an evolutionist scientific denounces the mytification of
Darwin, the spread of false claims that enhance his figure and even
the creation of a physical temple around these myths.
YATM (yet another turing machine) :-)
Original Message
http://www.toothycat.net/~hologram/Turing/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To
On 9/11/2012 5:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Roger Cloughrclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi meekerdb
Science is science and religion is religion
and never the two shall meet.
I'm not sure about this Roger. The goal of a true science and true
religion, in my opinion
On 9/13/2012 4:55 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi benjayk,
This is exactly what I have been complaining to Bruno about. He does not see several
things that are problematic.
1) Godel numberings are not unique. Thus there is no a single abslute structure of
relations, there is an infinity
On 9/14/2012 12:18 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Every belief system has a core and a set of pseudo logic, which is a
mix of pseudo arguments ad authoritas that justify their beliefs.
Positivsts have Phisics as its core, defence shield. From this,
almost everything else is derived. Because the
On 9/14/2012 6:10 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
The evidence has strong indications of being manipulated for the purpose of a
political agenda.
It is certainly cherry-picked by minions of the fossil fuel industry.
The way that the sensors are distributed and their data is weighed is the
On 9/14/2012 11:10 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/14/2012 1:10 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/14/2012 6:10 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
The evidence has strong indications of being manipulated for the purpose of a
political agenda.
It is certainly cherry-picked by minions of the fossil fuel
On 9/15/2012 8:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Sep 2012, at 18:36, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
I contend that universality is the independence of computations to any
particular
On 9/15/2012 9:35 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/15/2012 4:11 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 02:55:17AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Could you elaborate on what your definition of a digital
machine is?
Anything Turing emulable.
Dear Bruno,
OK.
On 9/15/2012 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Most religion agree that God is not human conceivable, and that is why we can be deluded
in recognizing sign, so that it is better to trust God for teaching Itself to the
others, and not intervene too much on that plane.
What religion leaves it to
On 9/15/2012 10:29 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/15/2012 9:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
Miraculous new invention. All plantlife eats CO2 and releases O2.
I have never seen biomass dymanics represented in the climate models...
Most biological carbon processing
On 9/15/2012 7:36 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 2:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/15/2012 8:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Sep 2012, at 18:36, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Stephen P
On 9/15/2012 8:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 3:11 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'm giving a talk Monday on why we should be building molten-salt thorium
reactors
to replace the burning of fossil fuels for electrical
On 9/15/2012 10:13 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I like this conversation! I am interested in the materials required for the vessel
and the plumbing. Some kind of ceramic coated titanium or zirconium? Alumina reinforced
steel
On 9/16/2012 12:44 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 15.09.2012 21:56 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/15/2012 9:35 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/15/2012 4:11 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
...
Hi Russell,
That is far too inclusive a definition of computation.
Not really, it only requires
On 9/16/2012 1:37 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
It may be too late to do someting about global warming. In the early 1980s we had plenty
of time to act, today we have to accept at least 2°C temperature rise and hope that will
not cause big problems, but even that will require taking drastic
On 9/17/2012 10:36 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Rex,
Do you have a non-platonist explanation for the discovery of the
Mandelbrot set and the infinite complexity therein? How can you make
sense of that in terms of the constructivist point of view
How can you make sense of it otherwise. The
On 9/17/2012 10:40 AM, John Clark wrote:
Most adults don't believe in Santa Claus even though they once did because they were
told by their parents when they were still quite young that he didn't exist, if they
waited until they were 17 to be informed it would be too late and they wouldn't have
But did anybody think z' = z^2 + c was interesting before that?
Bretn
On 9/17/2012 1:17 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
I would say computers were the tool that allowed us to see it, like a
microscope allowed us to see bacteria, and a telescope stars.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 3:14 PM,
On 9/17/2012 2:45 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Benoit Mandelbrot did.
I wasn't aware of that. Did he have a proof of the fractal nature of the set before he
calculated it?
Brent
But what does interesting have to do with it?
Did anyone think that empty patch of sky was interesting before
On 9/18/2012 8:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Sep 2012, at 22:25, meekerdb wrote:
But did anybody think z' = z^2 + c was interesting before that?
Yes. This was known by people like Fatou and Julia, in the early 1900.
I knew they considered what are now called fractal sets
On 9/18/2012 9:05 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
My hypothesis is that human qualia is an iconic capitulation of
sub-personal and
super-personal qualia - meta qualia which synergistically recovers
richer
qualities of experience from the Totality.
Okay. But it will
On 9/18/2012 9:44 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 1:59 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think most reactors using Hastelloy plumbing (one of several nickel alloys).
The containment vessels are steel and concrete. They differ a lot
On 9/18/2012 10:31 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
No it is absolutely necessary. If you had no knowledge regarding what you were seeing,
no qualia at all, you would be blind and dysfunctional.
You might cite blund sighr as a counter example, but actually i think it is evidence of
modularity if mind.
On 9/17/2012 11:27 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Do you mean that the meaning in a guided missile system happens as
by-product of its development by engineers?
To me, it seems that meaning that you have defined in Mars Rovers
is yet another theory of epiphenomenalism.
And your quote and question
On 9/18/2012 9:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
The unreasonable effectiveness of math in the physical sciences is yet further support
if Platonism.
I don't see that this follows. If we invent language, including mathematics, to describe
our theories of the world that explains their effectiveness.
On 9/19/2012 10:41 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Still, most musicians talk about experiences and inspirations... but this is marketing.
When you're working in/with an orchestra on a tight schedule with multiple stakeholders,
you see all the romantic fluff evaporating in favor of getting
On 9/19/2012 10:42 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Roger Cloughrclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
OK, I'll bite.
How does modern biology define life ?
It's rarely defined unless someone asks for a definition. Problems
arise with the definition
On 9/19/2012 2:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:27:13 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
Obeying the commandments will not get you into heaven,
only believing in Christ's sacrifice for us will do that.
On 9/19/2012 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:20:00 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/19/2012 2:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:27:13 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
Obeying the commandments will
On 9/19/2012 4:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 6:54:25 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/19/2012 3:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:20:00 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/19/2012 2:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On
On 9/19/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Also, the concept of a super intelligent entity torturing someone may be almost
contradictory, for they may realize the identity of all minds, and therefore they would
be torturing themselves.
That would be an inconsistency of values, but not a logical
On 9/20/2012 12:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Any one up to explaining this:
http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/se/38864.html
What's to explain? The bees found the shortest route. Do you suffer from the
misconception that NP-hard = insoluble? NP is just a description of how a
On 9/20/2012 2:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A modal logic of probability is given by the behavior of the probability one. In
Kripke terms, P(x) = 1 in world alpha means that x is realized in all worlds accessible
from alpha, and (key point) that we are not in a cul-de-sac world.
What does
701 - 800 of 5480 matches
Mail list logo
