On Jun 19, 3:59 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
how would the world be different if causes WERE reasons?
if someone gets struck by lightning, God really does hate them.
I pray to God you're joking.
Causes=reasons is *your
On Jun 5, 3:27 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If top level properties were determined by low level properties, then
there would only be one level of description.
Doens't follow. Forest-level descriptions may be convenient.
--
You received this message because you are
On Jun 15, 5:17 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/15/2012 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jun 2012, at 18:21, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand how we can
On Jun 16, 6:49 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It seems pretty clear. It's an ability to make decisions in a spirit
realm and have them implemented in the physical realm.
Physical realm mental realm spirit realm or
On Jun 17, 7:28 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
No, not that I know to be such; but believers in contra causal free will
think that at
least some of their actions are.
Does anyone describe themselves as a believer in Contra Causal Free
Will? People do
describe themselves as
On Jun 18, 6:02 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:38 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Thins happen for:
a reason and a cause
or
a reason but not cause
or
no reason but a cause
or
no reason and no cause.
The dictionary on my Mac says
On Jun 18, 6:03 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/18/2012 9:36 AM, 1Z wrote:
About nc-free-will, I have not any idea (yet?) about what it could mean.
I tend to agree
with John on this.
It seems pretty clear. It's an ability to make decisions in a spirit
realm
On Jun 18, 6:22 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/18/2012 9:50 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Jun 17, 7:28 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
No, not that I know to be such; but believers in contra causal free will
think that at
least some of their actions are.
Does anyone
On Jun 18, 6:46 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:31 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
causes are not reasons
I see. Well, how would the world be different if causes WERE reasons?
It means that if someone gets struck by lightning, God really does
hate
On Jun 18, 6:44 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/18/2012 10:34 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Jun 18, 6:03 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/18/2012 9:36 AM, 1Z wrote:
About nc-free-will, I have not any idea (yet?) about what it could
mean. I tend to agree
On Apr 30, 2:53 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/29/2012 6:37 PM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:30 am, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/29/2012 5:26 PM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 29, 8:37 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/29/2012 3:22 AM, 1Z wrote
On Apr 27, 11:19 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That's why I said, except for people who believe in philosophical zombies.
Brent
A quailess AI isn;t a p-zombie. A p-zombie is physically identical to
a human. An AI will be
made out of silicon or something, which could
On Apr 27, 9:16 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/27/2012 12:00 PM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 7:13 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
We never explained where the elan vital was or where it came
from. We just came up with a different kind of 'explanation'.
And the EV
On Apr 27, 9:29 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 27, 11:38 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
What do you say the efficient cause of feeling is?
Some priori brain state.
What could make a brain state cause a feeling?
A psychophsical law
On Apr 29, 8:37 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/29/2012 3:22 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 11:19 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That's why I said, except for people who believe in philosophical
zombies.
Brent
A quailess AI isn;t a p-zombie. A p-zombie
On Apr 30, 2:30 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/29/2012 5:26 PM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 29, 8:37 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/29/2012 3:22 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 11:19 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That's why I said, except for people who
On Apr 27, 10:27 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 27, 5:02 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 27, 9:51 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
To say that nothing is no-thing
(the thing that is the absence of things) is completely valid
On Apr 24, 7:54 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 4:21 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 21, 8:37 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 20, 8:36 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 5, 1:37 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons
On Apr 24, 6:19 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It is a standard use of language to say that people are responsible in
varying degrees for their actions. I don't understand why you claim
that your binary determinism is 'standard language' in some way. When
we talk about
On Apr 23, 3:49 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:57 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If you're bloody-minded enough you can claim here isn't really an
obvious connection between clouds and rain either.
Sure, it's a matter of degree. If I
On Apr 24, 8:07 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
context was a War of the Worldviews presentation, where she was
s She likes to be provocative anyhow. I still
don't see how calling it a mirage or illusion gets around the hard
problem at all. A mirage to whom?
More to the
On Apr 25, 10:21 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not saying that consciousness is not mysterious and certainly not
non-existent (I think people who say that do it just do it to be
provocative). But it is a problem when a mysterious thing is explained
in terms of
On Apr 25, 10:25 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/25/2012 11:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 24.04.2012 22:22 meekerdb said the following:
...
As I've posted before, when we know how look at a brain and infer what
it's thinking and we know how to build a brain
On Apr 26, 8:31 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
I never said there is no choosing, we choose things all the time. Unlike
the noise free will the word choose actually means something; if at a
particular time I can see that there are 2 actions (X or Y) I can take and
I don't know
On Apr 27, 4:02 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 27, 9:11 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 7:54 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 4:21 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 21, 8:37 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons
On Apr 27, 4:08 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 27, 10:00 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
That's a rather shallow dismissal of compatibiism. We absolve
people of guilt if they are compelled by an agency,
but causaiton
is not the same as compulsion.
Only
On Apr 25, 3:49 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Determined means it's not random and random means it's not
determined.
Why? Random is determined randomly.
Nothing is not a thing and randomness is not a kind of determinism.
--
You received this message because you are
On Apr 27, 6:13 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/27/2012 7:29 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 25, 10:25 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/25/2012 11:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 24.04.2012 22:22 meekerdb said the following:
...
As I've posted before, when
On Apr 27, 6:50 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/27/2012 10:42 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:13 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/27/2012 7:29 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 25, 10:25 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/25/2012 11:45 AM, Evgenii
On Apr 27, 7:13 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/27/2012 11:07 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:50 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/27/2012 10:42 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:13 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/27/2012 7:29 AM, 1Z wrote
On Apr 27, 7:13 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
We never explained where the elan vital was or where it came
from. We just came up with a different kind of 'explanation'.
And the EV is supposed to be analgous to qualia? But that paralell
doens;t work. The EV is dismissable
because
On Apr 27, 9:16 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/27/2012 12:00 PM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 7:13 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
We never explained where the elan vital was or where it came
from. We just came up with a different kind of 'explanation'.
And the EV
On Apr 27, 9:51 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
To say that nothing is no-thing
(the thing that is the absence of things) is completely valid,
No, it is nonsense.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to
On Apr 21, 8:37 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 20, 8:36 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 5, 1:37 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
What do you say the efficient cause of feeling is?
Some priori brain state.
What could make a brain
On Apr 17, 6:54 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:43 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 5, 1:37 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Stathis and Brent,
I'll respond to both at once since they are the same core objection:
Why
On Apr 5, 1:37 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Stathis and Brent,
I'll respond to both at once since they are the same core objection:
Why does feeling have to have purpose?
I can't even conceive of what it would mean for them
to be justified.
They have to be
On Apr 3, 4:54 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:04 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 9:39 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 2:12 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 6:02 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons
On Apr 3, 4:58 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:07 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Why not? If the brain is deterministic then beliefs are deterministic
and changing them
by external inputs can change performance.
The belief is about the power
On Apr 3, 3:20 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 8:06 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:08 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
From blindsight, synesthesia, and anosognosia we know that particular
On Apr 2, 9:39 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 2:12 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 6:02 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 12:03 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/2/2012 7:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote
On Apr 2, 9:41 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 1:33 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/2/2012 10:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Apr 2, 12:03 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/2/2012 7:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If all
On Apr 3, 3:12 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 5:05 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But the experiment didn't show there was more or less free will. It didn't
even show
there was any free will. It just showed that inducing a belief in free
will
On Mar 14, 10:11 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 14, 2:52 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Compare: If you had no immortal soul that would be judged after your death
your belief
about it should have no effect on your religious behavior. Beliefs can
On Mar 14, 6:08 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 14, 12:32 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/14/2012 7:21 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Mar 13, 11:15 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/13/2012 3:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Mar 14, 4:49 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 14, 10:44 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/5/613.abstract
Abstract
On Apr 2, 3:03 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 9:49 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 14, 10:11 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 14, 2:52 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Compare: If you had no immortal soul that would
On Apr 2, 3:14 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 9:52 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 14, 6:08 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 14, 12:32 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 3/14/2012 7:21 AM, Craig Weinberg
On Apr 2, 5:28 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 10:38 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Craig,
What is the definition of free will you are applying here? Please be as
specific as possible.
Thanks,
Jason
Since free will is primitive, it is not
On Apr 2, 6:02 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 12:03 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/2/2012 7:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If all movement was involuntary in the
first place then there would be no significant difference between
On Apr 2, 6:33 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Most decisions do not have an experience associated with them, we make them
'subconsciously' (e.g. the movement of my fingers in typing this). So the
experience of
free will is just the failure to be able to trace all the causes of a
On Feb 27, 10:11 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 25, 10:50 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 25, 6:32 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 24, 8:22 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 23, 10:24 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons
On Feb 27, 6:40 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 27.02.2012 17:47 John Clark said the following:
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Craig
Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
There is no simulation of red. Red is only red.
But red itself is a simulation. Electromagnetic
On Feb 25, 6:32 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 24, 8:22 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 23, 10:24 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You are
thinking that because you know it's a simulation it means that the
observers
On Feb 24, 11:02 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 24, 7:40 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Which only underscores how different consciousness is from
computation. We can't share the exact same software, but computers
can. We can't re-run our experiences
On Feb 24, 11:13 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course. They are the particular sense of epistemology which 'seems
like' the opposite of 'seems like'. Phenomena are reduced to their
wireframe invariance - a skeleton which seems as if it 'simply is'
because it represents
On Feb 23, 9:14 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 23, 3:25 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 22, 7:42 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Has someone already mentioned this?
I woke up in the middle of the night with this, so it might not make
...and then refuse to follow throught the
consequences.
Are you 1Z? Figurative is the word to focus on. Subjectivity
is figurative. Meaning, perception, sensation...all figurative.
Literal is the antithesis that is objectivity.
But not actually supernatural at all, if he is a geek with BO
On Feb 22, 1:10 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Could a rock have consciousness? Good answer from someone on
Quora:http://www.quora.com/Could-a-rock-have-consciousness
Yes, obviously.
Why obviously?
Well, first of all, where is the “disconnect” and what is it
On Feb 21, 10:41 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 21, 5:41 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
You are conflating the levels (as Bruno always tells me). The
simulation has no access to extra-simulatory information, it is a
complete sub-universe. It's logic
On Feb 23, 3:50 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 23, 9:34 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Well, first of all, where is the “disconnect” and what is it made
of? Specifically, the disconnect that must occur if some parts of
reality are “conscious” while
On Feb 22, 7:42 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Has someone already mentioned this?
I woke up in the middle of the night with this, so it might not make
sense...or...
The idea of saying yes to the doctor presumes that we, in the thought
experiment, bring to the thought
On Feb 23, 7:43 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 23, 11:18 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 21, 5:41 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
You are conflating the levels (as Bruno always tells me). The
simulation has no access to extra-simulatory
On Feb 23, 7:43 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 23, 11:18 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Why would Gods be supernatural?
Why would bachelors be married?
This is your argument, not mine. My whole point is that God becomes
natural
On Feb 23, 8:27 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 23, 2:45 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Well, first of all, where is the “disconnect” and what is it made
of? Specifically, the disconnect that must occur if some parts of
reality
On Feb 20, 7:43 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Feb 2012, at 14:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
How do you know? Comp says we can't know whether we are artificial
simulation or not.
I am sorry, but I think this is false. I would say that comp says that
we are in infinitely
On Feb 20, 6:37 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 10:32 am, acw a...@lavabit.com wrote:
On 2/20/2012 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 19, 11:57 pm,
1Zpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
..
On Feb 20, 5:38 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
There could an infinite number of the Many Worlds with all kinds of Gods.
But then why did you say There is something that prevents infinite
nonsense
On Feb 20, 1:45 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 11:57 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I don;t have to agree that essentiallytechnological
control means god or supernaural
You don't
On Feb 20, 8:52 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/2/20 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
He said and I quote and emphasis: Now comp makes **almost all** (not any)
UMs' physics identical.
Note that there will still be an infinite variety of HP/WR physics
even
if it is a small
On Feb 21, 4:16 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
it is important to conceive that comp might be false.
Why? If it's false I don't see how there could be a way to prove it false,
Huh? Hardly anything is exactly
On Feb 21, 8:03 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 21, 5:21 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 6:37 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Right, but true = a true reflection of the simulation.
No. True = true of unsimulated reality.
Where
On Feb 21, 10:41 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 21, 5:41 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
How do you know? Comp says we can't know whether we are artificial
simulation or not.
That doens't make you supernatural.
Why would I be? I'm not the administrator
On Feb 20, 6:52 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Feb 2012, at 05:20, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 10:57 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Comp says that any UM's
experience is indistinguishable from
On Feb 20, 3:32 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Feb 2012, at 09:59, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 20, 6:52 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Feb 2012, at 05:20, 1Z wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 10:57 pm
On Feb 20, 4:48 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Peter,
why do you think - if there are indeed many universes - that they are
identical and like ours?
It isn't a question of what I think.
There are different multiversal theories. Some say all
the universes are bound by a set of
On Feb 19, 4:52 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 5:36 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I would
like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds
Interpretation of
On Feb 20, 1:08 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
It is with some trepidation that I enter into this discussion, but I
would
like to suggest that if MWI is true, where MWI is the Many Worlds
Interpretation
On Feb 20, 3:35 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 8:36 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 1:08 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2:19 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
It is with some trepidation that I enter
On Feb 20, 4:10 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 10:57 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Comp says that any UM's
experience is indistinguishable from primitive physics, right?
Computaionalism or Bruno's comp?
--
You received this message because you are
On Feb 20, 4:41 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 10:59 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 3:35 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 8:36 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 1:08 am, Craig Weinberg
On Jan 31, 8:53 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 31, 2:52 pm, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Craig,
The movie The Matrix is essentially about comp. What is it about that
movie's premise that seems impossible to you?
It's possible to simulate a world
On Feb 9, 2:45 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 8, 10:14 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Whatever. If you subjectivise it completely. it is no longer
of interest.
That's because you aren't taking subjectivity seriously.
Why would your subjective concerns matter
On Feb 12, 2:22 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 11, 8:04 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/2/11 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
All computers are as dumb as anything could be. Any computer will run
the same loop over and over forever if you
On Feb 13, 5:17 pm, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Digital substitution
is not a local symmetry.
hence flight simulators do not fly.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
On Feb 9, 4:43 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
It [being free] means your actions are not determined by external forces
So a external force like light that has reflected off a wall does not
effect your actions and you crash
On Feb 14, 6:35 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Silicon does not have the same chemical properties as the element germanium
either (although they are in the same column in the periodic table as is
carbon) and yet you can make transistors out of both and in fact the first
On Feb 14, 6:48 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Free Will is defined as the power or ability to rationally choose
If its rational then there is a reason for it and thus it's deterministic.
False, because causes need
On Feb 14, 9:47 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 14, 9:58 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Whatever. If you subjectivise it completely. it is no longer
of interest.
That's because you aren't taking subjectivity seriously.
Why would your subjective
On Feb 14, 10:01 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 14, 10:37 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 12, 2:22 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
That's what being dumb is - not being able to figure out how to do
anything else than what you already
On Feb 14, 9:47 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 14, 9:58 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
You seem to be runnign off a theory of concept-formation
whereby concepts are only ever recongnitions of percerived
realities.
Not perceived realities, but ontological
On Feb 11, 8:33 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 11, 12:01 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 11, 1:24 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm brilliant, I'm explaining
why the popular ideas
On Feb 11, 1:24 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm brilliant, I'm explaining
why the popular ideas and conventional wisdom of the moment are
misguided.
You need to explain, non-question-beggingly..
What a computer does is arithmetic
On Feb 7, 5:52 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 6, 11:30 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
More seriously, in the chinese room experience, Searle's error can be
seen also as a confusion of level. If I can emulate Einstein brain,
I can answer all question
On Feb 7, 5:54 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
But then why wouldn;t agents have knowledge of each others FW functions.
I can't answer that question because I don't know what FW functions are,
and forget functions I don't even
On Feb 7, 12:52 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 7, 12:01 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 6, 9:48 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 6, 7:12 am, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
arXiv:1202.0720v1 [physics.hist-ph
On Feb 8, 2:07 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 8, 6:45 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 7, 12:52 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It depends if you consider biology metaphysical. Free will is a
capacity which we associate with living
On Feb 8, 4:27 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Since it is predictable, it is deterministic
Yes.
since it is determiniistic it is no free.
Cannot comment because your definition of free will was nonsensical and the
problem
On Feb 8, 6:41 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 8, 11:01 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 8, 2:07 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It depends if you consider biology metaphysical. Free will is a
capacity which we associate
On Feb 7, 7:04 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
Let us take a closed vessel with oxygen and hydrogen at room
temperature. Then we open a platinum catalyst in the vessel and the
reaction starts. Will then the information in the vessel be conserved?
Evgenii
What's the difference
On Feb 8, 8:31 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 8, 2:32 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 8, 6:41 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 8, 11:01 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 8, 2:07 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons
1 - 100 of 789 matches
Mail list logo
