On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 3:38:47 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> IIT is just a materialistic fairy-tale.
>
But isn't Hedda's response in the symposium:
IIT is a physicalistic fairy-tale
?
@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
IIT is just a materialistic fairy-tale.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion
foundations of the integrated information theory of
> consciousness*
> Tim Bayne [ https://research.monash.edu/en/persons/timothy-bayne ]
> https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2018/1/niy007/5047367
>
> *Symposium on Bayne, “On the axiomatic foundations of the int
On 5/21/2019 2:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
via Hedda Hassel Mørch @heddamorch
https://twitter.com/heddamorch/status/113048705070737817
A lot to read:
*On the axiomatic foundations of the integrated information theory of
consciousness*
Tim Bayne [ https://research.monash.edu/en/persons
via Hedda Hassel Mørch @heddamorch
https://twitter.com/heddamorch/status/113048705070737817
A lot to read:
*On the axiomatic foundations of the integrated information theory of
consciousness*
Tim Bayne [ https://research.monash.edu/en/persons/timothy-bayne ]
https://academic.oup.com/nc
> On 18 May 2019, at 10:12, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> Consciousness monism is incoherent if one maintains that there is an
> objective reality at all.
>
> If one rejects objective reality (a reality independent of oneself, or any
> self-aware conscious en
On Saturday, 18 May 2019 18:55:29 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
> Did you? Have you not heard of synesthesia?
>
> That is of course a case of cosciousness unification.
"Processing" means forming memories and drawing conclusions about action
> (including not taking action). Mere measuring or
Visan' via Everything List wrote:
Did you understand what I just wrote ?
On Saturday, 18 May 2019 01:45:25 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
On 5/17/2019 2:25 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
> Are AI fanboys aware of the fact that consciousness is a unity ?
For
> example, h
Consciousness monism is incoherent if one maintains that there is an
objective reality at all.
If one rejects objective reality (a reality independent of oneself, or any
self-aware conscious entity) then all bets are off.
But I guess there are "AI fanboys" (as I understand what you
Did you understand what I just wrote ?
On Saturday, 18 May 2019 01:45:25 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/17/2019 2:25 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
> > Are AI fanboys aware of the fact that consciousness is a unity ? For
> > example, hearing something an
On 5/17/2019 2:25 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
Are AI fanboys aware of the fact that consciousness is a unity ? For
example, hearing something and seeing something don't happen in 2
independent consciousnesses, but happen in only 1 consciousness. Also,
split brain patients
Are AI fanboys aware of the fact that consciousness is a unity ? For
example, hearing something and seeing something don't happen in 2
independent consciousnesses, but happen in only 1 consciousness. Also,
split brain patients show 2 different consciousness, for example one being
theist
no Marchal wrote:
>>>> ll sciences are born from theology, which remind us that the belief in
>>>> any reality out of personal consciousness requires an act of faith.
>>> This is false. Belief in an external reality is not "an act of faith".
>>> I
On 5/10/2019 6:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2019, at 17:53, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
On 5/9/2019 2:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
ll sciences are born from theology, which remind us that the belief in
any reality out of personal consciousness requires an act
On Thu, May 9, 2019, at 17:53, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
>
>
> On 5/9/2019 2:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > ll sciences are born from theology, which remind us that the belief in
> > any reality out of personal consciousness requires an act of fait
On 5/9/2019 2:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
ll sciences are born from theology, which remind us that the belief in
any reality out of personal consciousness requires an act of faith.
This is false. Belief in an external reality is not "an act of faith".
It's not an "act&quo
t. Smullyan too. But, as Cohen
explained, the theological motivation of mathematical logic has been forced to
be hidden to permit the professionalisation of mathematics in the 18th century.
All sciences are born from theology, which remind us that the belief in any
reality out of personal consciousness
On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:47 AM Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> > On 3 May 2019, at 20:09, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 5/3/2019 7:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> The current darkness comes from the separation of theology from
>
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 10:35:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With mechanism we don’t have a body, only relative “Gödel number”, ...
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
This always reminds me of The Prisoner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xcaxlxgnvf0
@philipthrift
--
You received this message
> On 3 May 2019, at 20:09, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/3/2019 7:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> The current darkness comes from the separation of theology from science,
>> making exact science inexact and human science inhuman.
>>
>> Religion is the only goal,
on. Or does it at least lead to any retrodictions, based on less
>> hypothesis (simpler)?
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>> On 5/1/2019 12:28 AM, cloudver...@gmail.com <mailto:cloudver...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
&
alism: A consciousness-only
ontology"
I once corresponded with Greg Stone
(https://www.near-death.com/science/articles/dying-brain-theory.html), who
advanced a similar theory and claimed that he could detach from his body and be
present at places remote from it. I offered to fund a research prog
On 5/3/2019 7:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The current darkness comes from the separation of theology from
science, making exact science inexact and human science inhuman.
Religion is the only goal,
That's the kind of absolutist pronouncement that priests and despots
have used to justify
of course, but here is
*Analytic Idealism: A consciousness-only ontology*
Bernardo Kastrup
Dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen (2019)
https://philpapers.org/rec/KASAIA-3
pdf: https://philpapers.org/archive/KASAIA-3.pdf
Abstract
This thesis articulates an analytic version of the ontology of
s).
As long as some people claim to know the fundamental truth, there will be
problems.
Bruno
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> To: everything-list
> Sent: Wed, May 1, 2019 12:15 pm
> Subject: Re: Bernardo Kastrup: &quo
/2019 12:28 AM, cloudver...@gmail.com <mailto:cloudver...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Not my view of course, but here is
>>
>> Analytic Idealism: A consciousness-only ontology
>> Bernardo Kastrup
>> Dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen (2019)
>> https://phi
Kastrup: "Analytic Idealism: A consciousness-only
ontology"
But does Kastrup's TOE yield any testable predictions?
Brent
On 5/1/2019 12:28 AM, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote:
Not my view of course, but here is
Analytic Idealism: A consciousness-only ontology Bernar
But does Kastrup's TOE yield any testable predictions?
Brent
On 5/1/2019 12:28 AM, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote:
Not my view of course, but here is
*Analytic Idealism: A consciousness-only ontology*
Bernardo Kastrup
Dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen (2019)
https://philpapers.org/rec
Not my view of course, but here is
*Analytic Idealism: A consciousness-only ontology*
Bernardo Kastrup
Dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen (2019)
https://philpapers.org/rec/KASAIA-3
pdf: https://philpapers.org/archive/KASAIA-3.pdf
Abstract
This thesis articulates an analytic version
https://theassc.org/assc-23/
ASSC 23
(Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness)
June 25th - 28th 2019
University of Western Ontario, Canada
abstract submissions due April 1, 2019
(no joke)
- pt
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
why do you criticise the theorem? Maybe you don’t? Bt then why
>>>> are you saying that elementary arithmetic is not a TOE? It explain the
>>>> coupling consciousness/matter using only elementary arithmetic.
>>>
>>> My criticism of the theory is different from my
..which I never refer to.
But then, why do you criticise the theorem? Maybe you don’t? Bt then why are
you saying that elementary arithmetic is not a TOE? It explain the coupling
consciousness/matter using only elementary arithmetic.
My criticism of the theory is different from my criticis
hy do you criticise the theorem? Maybe you don’t? Bt then why are
>> you saying that elementary arithmetic is not a TOE? It explain the coupling
>> consciousness/matter using only elementary arithmetic.
>
> My criticism of the theory is different from my criticism o
the coupling
consciousness/matter using only elementary arithmetic.
My criticism of the theory is different from my criticism of your
repeated claim that you have eliminated and matter and attributing
anything to it is "Aristotles error". My criticism of the theory that
arithmeti
ask them to emulate them. Turing also showed that elementary
arithmetic emulates them “already”.
You argument is equivalent to saying that we have to enumerate the primes
number to make sense of Riemann hypothesis. That looks like extreme
physicalism, akin to ultra-finitism.
> That's has be
not a TOE in which consciousness appears
without matter. It is a theory in which consciousness and matter must
appear together. Every time I mention this you strike back at the straw
man of primitive matter...which I never refer to.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are
:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/28/2019 2:14 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 3:48:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
&g
Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is Galen
>>> Strawson.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson>
>>&
> On 4 Mar 2019, at 19:48, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/4/2019 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Unconsciousness is an illusion of consciousness … It should be obvious that
>> “being unconscious” cannot be a first person experience, for logical reason.
>&g
> On 4 Mar 2019, at 19:47, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/4/2019 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> I have had two relatives die of Alzheimers and they lost their identity
>>> gradually as they lost memory.
>> They lost they memory. Not their identity, but the apprehension of their
>>
a in the
>>>>> abstract of a potentially infinite set of evolving bacteria interacting
>>>>> with their environment. But if a consider a potentially infinite set of
>>>>> thermostats interacting with their environment of furnaces and rooms, it
>>&
On 3/4/2019 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Unconsciousness is an illusion of consciousness … It should be obvious that
“being unconscious” cannot be a first person experience, for logical reason. To
die is not a personal event. That happens only to the others.
I agree. Except I don't
On 3/4/2019 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have had two relatives die of Alzheimers and they lost their identity
gradually as they lost memory.
They lost they memory. Not their identity, but the apprehension of their
identity. If not, when you ask where they are in the hospital, the
runo Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2019, at 22:47, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness
is *Galen Strawson*.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
ht
> On 3 Mar 2019, at 20:23, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/3/2019 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 1 Mar 2019, at 23:21, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/1/2019 7:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>
/1/2019 7:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 28 Feb 2019, at 22:47, Brent Meeker >>>> <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip
On 3/3/2019 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 1 Mar 2019, at 23:21, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/1/2019 7:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The “minimal” consciousness require only a weak notion of self. It does not
require memory, nor any sense. It is a highly dissociated state of
consciousness
hilip Thrift wrote:
The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness
is *Galen Strawson*.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/
https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429
There is a lot of his materi
> On 1 Mar 2019, at 23:21, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/1/2019 7:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> The “minimal” consciousness require only a weak notion of self. It does not
>> require memory, nor any sense. It is a highly dissociated state of
>&g
/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is Galen
>>>> Strawson.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
>>>
;>>> On 2/28/2019 2:14 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 3:48:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/28/2019 1
>>
>>
>> On 2/28/2019 2:14 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 3:48:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>&
On 3/1/2019 7:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You might be interested by this quite remarkable news: a 8 letters
synthetic DNA, which seems to work well.
If that is true, it really suggests that we all come from one
bacteria, I think. It is amazing that all life use only the same 4
letters
>>> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is Galen
>>>> Strawson.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
>>>&g
>>>
>>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 3:48:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is
On 3/1/2019 7:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The “minimal” consciousness require only a weak notion of self. It
does not require memory, nor any sense. It is a highly dissociated
state of consciousness. It is quite different from the usual mundane
consciousness of the everyday life.
How
On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 2:36:06 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/1/2019 7:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Feb 2019, at 22:47, Brent Meeker >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> The best curr
On 3/1/2019 7:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2019, at 22:47, Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is
*Galen Strawson*.
https://en.wikipedia
On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 9:08:43 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Feb 2019, at 22:47, Brent Meeker >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> The best current philosopher of (and writer about) conscious
> On 28 Feb 2019, at 22:47, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is Galen
>> Strawson.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wik
> On 28 Feb 2019, at 21:32, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/28/2019 10:35 AM, Azutmai wrote:
>> Brent . . . it might be helpful to equate the word ‘consciousness’ and
>> ‘awareness.’ If we are conscious or aware of something . . . then it
>> pertains to our
> On 28 Feb 2019, at 19:35, Azutmai wrote:
>
> Brent . . . it might be helpful to equate the word ‘consciousness’ and
> ‘awareness.’
Yes. We can at some point add nuance, but as long as we don’t use the nuance,
it is better to not make things complex for no reason.
> If w
9 at 4:34:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/28/2019 2:14 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 3:48:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>&g
t;>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 3:48:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The best current philosopher of (and writer abou
:
The best current philosopher of (and writer about)
consciousness is *Galen Strawson*.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson>
https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/
<https://sites.google
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is *Galen
>> Strawson*.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
>> https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/
>> https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philo
On 2/28/2019 2:14 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 3:48:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness
is *Galen Strawson*.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 3:48:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is *Galen
> Strawson*.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawso
On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is
*Galen Strawson*.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/
https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id
The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is *Galen
Strawson*.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/
https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429
There is a lot of his material (PDFs
On 2/28/2019 10:35 AM, Azutmai wrote:
Brent . . . it might be helpful to equate the word ‘consciousness’ and
‘awareness.’ If we are conscious or aware of something . . . then it
pertains to our viewpoint and lifestyle.
I take awareness to be consciousness without reflection
Brent . . . it might be helpful to equate the word ‘consciousness’ and
‘awareness.’ If we are conscious or aware of something . . . then it
pertains to our viewpoint and lifestyle. Memory is a secondary feature to
allow the individual to retain over time . . . otherwise we would have
> On 26 Feb 2019, at 23:45, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 4:39:25 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
> On 2/26/2019 2:02 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 2:51:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/26/2019 11:00 AM, Philip
> On 26 Feb 2019, at 19:43, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/26/2019 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 26 Feb 2019, at 01:04, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/25/2019 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Fictionalism does not apply to the arithmetical reality, nor to physics,
On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 4:39:25 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/26/2019 2:02 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 2:51:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/26/2019 11:00 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at
On 2/26/2019 2:02 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 2:51:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 2/26/2019 11:00 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 12:43:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
Right. Truth and existence are quite different
On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 2:51:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/26/2019 11:00 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 12:43:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Right. Truth and existence are quite different things.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>>
> For those
On 2/26/2019 11:00 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 12:43:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
Right. Truth and existence are quite different things.
Brent
For those from the type theory, programming language theory,
constructive mathematics (whatever that
On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 12:43:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> Right. Truth and existence are quite different things.
>
> Brent
>
>
>
For those from the type theory, programming language theory, constructive
mathematics (whatever that clumping of schools is called):
Truth and
On 2/26/2019 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Feb 2019, at 01:04, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/25/2019 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Fictionalism does not apply to the arithmetical reality, nor to physics, but to
the naïve idea of a “physical universe” as being the fundamental reality.
> On 26 Feb 2019, at 01:04, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/25/2019 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Fictionalism does not apply to the arithmetical reality, nor to physics, but
>> to the naïve idea of a “physical universe” as being the fundamental reality.
>> The theology of the
On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 6:04:28 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/25/2019 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > Fictionalism does not apply to the arithmetical reality, nor to
> > physics, but to the naïve idea of a “physical universe” as being the
> > fundamental reality. The theology
On 2/25/2019 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Fictionalism does not apply to the arithmetical reality, nor to
physics, but to the naïve idea of a “physical universe” as being the
fundamental reality. The theology of the universal machine is a priori
quite non Aristotelian: there is no Creator,
> On 25 Feb 2019, at 11:52, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 3:34:15 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 22 Feb 2019, at 18:44, Philip Thrift >
>> wrote:
>>
>> Some accept the possibility that there can be something that is immaterial.
>
> Yes. We call them
On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 3:34:15 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Feb 2019, at 18:44, Philip Thrift >
> wrote:
>
>
> Some accept the possibility that there can be something that is immaterial.
>
>
> Yes. We call them “mathematician”.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
This recent thesis I came
ing-list/0SIiavzPI84/jUkaOlUdAwAJ
>>> > <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/0SIiavzPI84/jUkaOlUdAwAJ>
>>> This is the link to the reply in the topic "When Did Consciousness Begin?"
>>> As I have said before, the modal logic and numerical
I was explaining.
In fact the machine, PA say, can guess or infer abductively or inductively its
own consistency, and add it as a new axiom leading to the “new” machine PA +
con PA (which is different than PA, and indeed much more powerful in the range
of its theorem, and this makes the length of many
p Thrift wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 9:14:38 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> >
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/0SIiavzPI84/jUkaOlUdAwAJ
>> This is the link to the reply in the topic "When Did Consciousne
AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/0SIiavzPI84/jUkaOlUdAwAJ
>> > <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/0SIiavzPI84/jUkaOlUdAwAJ>
>> This is the link to the reply in the topic "When Did Consciousn
-list/0SIiavzPI84/jUkaOlUdAwAJ
> This is the link to the reply in the topic "When Did Consciousness Begin?"
> As I have said before, the modal logic and numerical semantics written
> there is one way to approach the science of experience. But I think
> ultimately this is a logical se
> On 18 Feb 2019, at 20:18, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 9:14:38 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/0SIiavzPI84/jUkaOlUdAwAJ
> This is the link to the reply in the topic "When Did Consciou
On 2/17/2019 2:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But the machine itself will not believe us, or understand this.
Why not? It can't prove what algorithm it is, but it can know that we
know...so why would it disbelieve us.
Tha machine becomes inconsistent if it assumes its consistency (cf Rogers’s
> On 15 Feb 2019, at 19:50, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/14/2019 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 14 Feb 2019, at 06:44, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/12/2019 5:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>&
ence for it. So it looks like making things only more
complex without any evidence for it. Assuming matter makes it primitive,
without reason.
>
> > because I have never seen any evidence for it.
>
> That's OK, I don't think matter has ever seen any evidence for you either.
N
> On 15 Feb 2019, at 19:53, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/14/2019 3:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Don’t hesitate to find some argument in favour of primitive materials, but
>> in my opinion, this is highly speculative, and never used in physics.
>
> But the non-material primitive is
Hi Philip,
I cannot answer in your text for reason of bad formatting. It looks hard to be
sent too.
I comment here: when you say:
<<
Matter is everything that we can see, smell, touch, feel and even can't see.
>>
I am OK with this definition.
But when you add
<<
Everything is matter,
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 9:14:38 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/0SIiavzPI84/jUkaOlUdAwAJ
This is the link to the reply in the topic "When Did Consciousness Begin?"
As I have said before, the modal logic and numerical sema
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:14 AM Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Matter doesn't care if you believe in it or not, it will just continue
>> doing what it does.
>
>
> *> Assuming it exists.*
>
You've said that many many times before but I still don't get your point.
Apparently I don't know what you mean
only more
complex without any evidence for it. Assuming matter makes it primitive,
without reason.
>
> > because I have never seen any evidence for it.
>
> That's OK, I don't think matter has ever seen any evidence for you either.
Nor for your consciousness, but
On 2/14/2019 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2019, at 06:44, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/12/2019 5:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If we could knew which machine we are, we could define consciousness, or at
least our personal current consciousness, as it would be defined
401 - 500 of 3912 matches
Mail list logo
