Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > In the Answer this: of MWI, you're about to perform an electron spin > measurement experiment. Before the experiment, the experimenter is asked > what is the probability he will measure spin up? What would you answer if > you were the experimenter ?

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > 2015-03-28 19:04 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes : > >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 6:01 PM, John Clark wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> >>> > Is anyone else worried that the list is descending to

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-03-28 19:04 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes : > > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 6:01 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> > Is anyone else worried that the list is descending to a low place? >>> >> >> It's interesting, Quentin The Horse Fucker has been

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 6:01 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > Is anyone else worried that the list is descending to a low place? >> > > It's interesting, Quentin The Horse Fucker has been calling me "Liar > Clark" about every other day since Dece

RE: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Is anyone else worried that the list is descending to a low place? It's interesting, Quentin The Horse Fucker has be

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 5:40 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > You are saying that step 3 is trivial, so you admit that it is correct >> > > No. The first 2 steps are trivialities dressed up in pompous language, but > in step 3 Bruno doesn't know what he'

RE: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness--

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of “We're all islands shouting lies to each other across seas of misunderstanding.” ― Rudyard Kipling,

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

Poor man... Answer this: In the context of MWI, you're about to perform an electron spin measurement experiment. Before the experiment, the experimenter is asked what is the probability he will measure spin up? What would you answer if you were the experimenter ? As we are in MWI context, it's a

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Is anyone else worried that the list is descending to a low place? > It's interesting, Quentin The Horse Fucker has been calling me "Liar Clark" about every other day since December 23 2013, and yet in all those preceding 15 months there was not

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote: > You are saying that step 3 is trivial, so you admit that it is correct > No. The first 2 steps are trivialities dressed up in pompous language, but in step 3 Bruno doesn't know what he's talking about, and I mean that literally not figuratively. The e

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 5:41 AM, LizR wrote: > Sadly, it's quite clear that Mr Clark has no wish to engage with the > argument being presented. It's fair to say that on this subject, at least, > rather than attempt to understand the point being made, he's resorted to > insults and dismissive "cle

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness--

“We're all islands shouting lies to each other across seas of misunderstanding.” ― Rudyard Kipling , *The Light That Failed * On 28 March 2015 at 18:11, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything Lis

RE: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness--

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything- On 23 Mar 2015, at 18:21, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: We search truth, I think. Truth is what is behind all the lies. Quentin and Kim are right, no need to add one. Lies are the window dressing that is wr

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

Sadly, it's quite clear that Mr Clark has no wish to engage with the argument being presented. It's fair to say that on this subject, at least, rather than attempt to understand the point being made, he's resorted to insults and dismissive "clever" answers. In other words, he's just trying to annoy

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 6:01 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > I don't think anyone claims that the duplicating machines are an analogy >> for the MWI. >> > Quentin The Horse Fucker claims EXACTLY that and even calls me a liar for > not saying so and for n

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Saturday, March 28, 2015, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Le 27 mars 2015 18:01, "John Clark" > a écrit : > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 Telmo Menezes > wrote: > > > >> > I don't think anyone claims that the duplicating machines are an > analogy for the MWI. > > > > Quentin The Horse Fucker cla

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > I think it is fair to say that this has become obvious. John Clark has > actually betrayed his understanding of the FPI many times I think it is fair to say that nobody on planet Earth finds the difference between "I" and "he" confusing. Not one per

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

Well I'm not sure there is a cure to your mental illness... But I hope someday you'll be better... And i mean it. Le 27 mars 2015 20:25, "John Clark" a écrit : > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 a Quentin The Horse Fucker > wrote: > > >>> I don't think anyone claims that the duplicating machines are an >>>

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 a Quentin The Horse Fucker wrote: >>> I don't think anyone claims that the duplicating machines are an >> analogy for the MWI. > > >> >> Quentin The Horse Fucker claims EXACTLY that > > > How my god... You actually have no shame, do you? It's pathological. > You're not even

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness--

On 23 Mar 2015, at 18:21, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: We search truth, I think. Truth is what is behind all the lies. Quentin and Kim are right, no need to add one. Lies are the window dressing that is wrapped around the truth in order for it to appear to be otherwise. Oft

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

Le 27 mars 2015 18:01, "John Clark" a écrit : > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> > I don't think anyone claims that the duplicating machines are an analogy for the MWI. > > Quentin The Horse Fucker claims EXACTLY that How my god... You actually have no shame, do you? It's path

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote: > I don't think anyone claims that the duplicating machines are an analogy > for the MWI. > Quentin The Horse Fucker claims EXACTLY that and even calls me a liar for not saying so and for not recognizing Bruno's genius in discovering that the man that wil

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 25 Mar 2015, at 21:32, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:15 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > John is inconsistent... he asserts that theory for duplication machines, and so say that he can never say anything about his future expect

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-03-27 15:29 GMT+01:00 John Clark : > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:58 PM, LizR wrote: > > >> It's a analogy of a very boring experiment in which there are two >>> possible outcomes where there is no way even in theory of ever knowing more >>> about those outcomes; for example sending photons thr

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:58 PM, LizR wrote: >> It's a analogy of a very boring experiment in which there are two >> possible outcomes where there is no way even in theory of ever knowing more >> about those outcomes; for example sending photons through the 2 slits but >> removing the film and le

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 27 March 2015 at 05:53, John Clark wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 meekerdb wrote: > > >> According to Quantum Mechanics depending on circumstances sometimes you >>> get interference and sometimes you don't, and we're talking about analogies >>> here and what it would take for the copying

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-03-26 18:15 GMT+01:00 John Clark : > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: > > >> > the N liar clark after the experiment will see [...] >> > > Hey Quentin I just figured out a new and really cool thought experiment, > suppose you were to fuck yourself and the horse you r

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > the N liar clark after the experiment will see [...] > Hey Quentin I just figured out a new and really cool thought experiment, suppose you were to fuck yourself and the horse you rode in on, what do you suppose would happen? John K

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

And round and round we go... In a measurement setup experiment, if MWI is true (either it is with differentiation or splitting) the N liar clark after the experiment will see one definite result, none will have a superposed memory with multiple results existing in their mind, the unequivocal liar c

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 meekerdb wrote: >> According to Quantum Mechanics depending on circumstances sometimes you >> get interference and sometimes you don't, and we're talking about analogies >> here and what it would take for the copying machine stuff to be a good >> analogy for the MWI. If ther

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On 25 March 2015 at 15:15, John Clark wrote: > > If I ask you "assuming Eastern Standard Time did the Big Bang happen on a > Thursday?" > The ultimate version of "Last Thursdayism" ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubs

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/25/2015 3:38 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: > MWI postulates that all outcomes of an experiment occur, whether they involve interference effects or not. According to Quantum Mechanics depending on circumstances sometimes

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 meekerdb wrote: > MWI postulates that all outcomes of an experiment occur, whether they > involve interference effects or not. > According to Quantum Mechanics depending on circumstances sometimes you get interference and sometimes you don't, and we're talking about analogi

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/25/2015 1:15 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote: > John is inconsistent... he asserts that theory for duplication machines, and so say that he can never say anything about his future expectations because he is no more

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > No, when you measure the spin of an electron, you don't have memories of > seeing spin up and spin down, That is true you don't have such memories, but the electron does. Because of this if you DON'T measure the spin of the electron but still want

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

This could be just thye benevolent dictator we need to sort out the planet we're ruining. I for one welcome our silicon based overlords... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emai

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On 26 March 2015 at 07:00, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > Yes, I also suspect that no deity exists but it will, in the future. > If you are curious about how this is already transforming into a religion, > google for "Roko's basilisk". > Also the plot of Frank Herbert's "Destination Void" (insofar as

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 26 March 2015 at 09:15, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > John is inconsistent... he asserts that theory for duplication machines, >> and so say that he can never say anything about his future expectations >> because he is no more... but somehow he can whe

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > What is our disagreement here exactly? You just seem to dislike my lack > of reverence for Watson. > I have no problem when people point out that Watson can't perform task X, but it makes me nuts when they say Watson accomplished task X much better than I did but it d

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:15 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > John is inconsistent... he asserts that theory for duplication machines, >> and so say that he can never say anything about his future expectations >> because he is no more... but somehow he c

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-03-25 21:15 GMT+01:00 John Clark : > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > John is inconsistent... he asserts that theory for duplication machines, >> and so say that he can never say anything about his future expectations >> because he is no more... but somehow he can when he t

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > John is inconsistent... he asserts that theory for duplication machines, > and so say that he can never say anything about his future expectations > because he is no more... but somehow he can when he talks about MWI... go > figure. > If you want to

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 6:33 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote: > > >> Generally when Watson was wrong he knew he was probably wrong. I find >>> that significant. >>> >> >> > I find that significant too, but this probability is ultimately >> computed by analys

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote: >> Generally when Watson was wrong he knew he was probably wrong. I find >> that significant. >> > > > I find that significant too, but this probability is ultimately computed > by analysing frequencies of occurrence of terms and propositions in its > da

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-03-25 11:53 GMT+01:00 LizR : > That's the capsule theory of identity in a capsule, as it were. The MWI > and comp both lead to it - each observer moment is only connected to the > others by the contents of your memory. Otherwise you're like Memento man. > Yes, but the previous moment/you can

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

That's the capsule theory of identity in a capsule, as it were. The MWI and comp both lead to it - each observer moment is only connected to the others by the contents of your memory. Otherwise you're like Memento man. On 25 March 2015 at 19:23, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Le 25 mars 2015 03:49,

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 3:15 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote: > > >> it will be more than human. >>> >> >> >I'm not sure what that means. >> > > It means that a future machine can perform any task in a way that is > superior to way that any human who ever lived

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

Le 25 mars 2015 03:49, "John Clark" a écrit : > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> > Then the john-before-he-measures-the-photon-spin can't measure the photon spin, > > > Photons have polarization not spin, electrons spin but obviously john-before-he-measures-the-electron-spin c

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > Then the john-before-he-measures-the-photon-spin can't measure the photon > spin, > Photons have polarization not spin, electrons spin but obviously john-before-he-measures-the-electron-spin can't measure it, but John can. However in that case John

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 Kim Jones wrote: > "John-before-he-looks" can still reflect on his possible futures. > On who's possible future? Please please please stop with the damn ambiguous personal pronouns! > >That is what you are being asked. What is your personal feeling, hunch, > anticipation,

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote: >> it will be more than human. >> > > >I'm not sure what that means. > It means that a future machine can perform any task in a way that is superior to way that any human who ever lived could using any definition of "superior" that you care to name. >

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 6:23 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote: > > >> >> And anyway the really important thing isn't if you can detect if the >>> thing you're talking to is a human but if you can detect if the thing >>> you're talking to is intelligent. >>> >> >>

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On 25 March 2015 at 06:23, John Clark wrote: > > Most people can't do that either. And researchers at the University of > Edinburgh made a machine that can write jokes such as "I like my > relationships like I like my source, open". Well OK maybe it's not a > particularly funny joke but it's a

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On 25 March 2015 at 06:23, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote: > > >> >> And anyway the really important thing isn't if you can detect if the >>> thing you're talking to is a human but if you can detect if the thing >>> you're talking to is intelligent. >>> >> >> > Yes

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

> On 25 Mar 2015, at 7:44 am, John Clark wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 meekerdb wrote: >> >> > the John-before-he-looks will be uncertain of what he will see > > People just can't get over that damn pronoun addiction! If "he" is the > John-before-he-looks then "he" will see nothing bec

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-03-24 21:44 GMT+01:00 John Clark : > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 meekerdb wrote: > > > the John-before-he-looks will be uncertain of what he will see >> > > People just can't get over that damn pronoun addiction! If "he" is the > John-before-he-looks then "he" will see nothing because "he" hasn't

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 meekerdb wrote: > the John-before-he-looks will be uncertain of what he will see > People just can't get over that damn pronoun addiction! If "he" is the John-before-he-looks then "he" will see nothing because "he" hasn't looked yet. If the John-before-he-looks sees Moscow

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 , meekerdb wrote: > >> If you really want it to be like the MWI explanation of the 2 slit >> experiment (the one when the photons end up hitting a photographic plate >> rater than continue into infinite space) then you'd have to modify Bruno's >> thought experiment experiment

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 24 Mar 2015, at 02:58, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 3/23/2015 5:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 24 March 2015 at 08:02, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net >> wrote: That every number has a unique successor for one. "Let's call the first number that doesn't ha

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 24 Mar 2015, at 01:50, meekerdb wrote: On 3/23/2015 5:02 PM, LizR wrote: On 24 March 2015 at 08:02, meekerdb wrote: That every number has a unique successor for one. "Let's call the first number that doesn't have a unique successor n..." That's one possible form of ultrafinitism, but

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 23 Mar 2015, at 21:50, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Mar 2015, at 21:38, Telmo Menezes wrote: It is the p in []p & p, which makes "machine's knowledge" not definable in term of number and machine. S4Grz formalizable at a lev

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 23 Mar 2015, at 20:36, John Mikes wrote: Bruno wrote: The problem is that there are few people serious in logic, in QM and in "philosophy of mind". And defamation does not help especially in interdisciplinary field. Which logic? (you mentioned the math-one) Good question. For some (

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 23 Mar 2015, at 20:32, meekerdb wrote: On 3/23/2015 10:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK, but people are also unaware that logicians have made tremendous progress in metamathematics-alias "mathematical logic", so we can talk on things non provable by this or that machine, and that some no

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> And anyway the really important thing isn't if you can detect if the >> thing you're talking to is a human but if you can detect if the thing >> you're talking to is intelligent. >> > > > Yes, that is the important thing. That is not what the Turin

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 23 Mar 2015, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote: On 3/23/2015 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Mar 2015, at 22:57, meekerdb wrote: On 3/22/2015 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Who? (Jean-Paul Delahaye? Bill Taylor? Invite them to present themselves an argument, because if it is a valid argumen

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 23 Mar 2015, at 19:51, meekerdb wrote: On 3/23/2015 9:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: To admit it is theology consists in admitting that we need some act of faith, so it is a type of religion. It is a belief in the possibility of some reincarnation. The trouble with needing some act of fai

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 23 Mar 2015, at 19:58, meekerdb wrote: On 3/23/2015 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Mar 2015, at 22:45, LizR wrote: On 23 March 2015 at 07:37, meekerdb wrote: I don't think step 3 is at all essential to the argument. It's nothing but setting up an analogy to Everett's MWI to sho

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 23 Mar 2015, at 18:12, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > We can't detect intelligence in machine, does not mean that machine are not intelligent. We can't detect intelligence in human too. Thus Sarah Palin could be more intelligent than Albert Einstein,

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:03 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/23/2015 1:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 5:50 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 Kim Jones wrote: >> >>>> I said it before I'll say it again, only somebody terrified of machine intellig

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 12:52 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > In my opinion the fundamental problem with the Turing Test is that >> passing it is an act of deception. The computer has to fake being a human. >> > > Lying takes intelligence, some have eve

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

So the recombination explicitly knits together the brains to preserve both sets of memories. This would work OK if brains were hard drives, I guess! I don't know how feasible-in-theory it is with real ones. (Or what it would prove.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the G

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/23/2015 8:42 PM, LizR wrote: I have no idea how you could combine them unless some form of quantum erasure took place perhaps. I think it's implicit that the duplication and merger are all classical processes. I see no problem in storing in a computer memories of Moscow@date1 and memorie

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

I have no idea how you could combine them unless some form of quantum erasure took place perhaps. PS Isn't this like David Deutsch's "quantum AI" test of the MWI? On 24 March 2015 at 16:28, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/23/2015 7:51 PM, John Clark wrote: > > If you really want it to be like the MWI

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/23/2015 7:51 PM, John Clark wrote: If you really want it to be like the MWI explanation of the 2 slit experiment (the one when the photons end up hitting a photographic plate rater than continue into infinite space) then you'd have to modify Bruno's thought experiment experiment a bit. Th

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/23/2015 7:08 PM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: >> I can provide the needed information right now right here, the Helsinki-John will see Helsinki the Moscow-John will see Moscow and the Washington-John will see Washingt

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 , Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > John thinks, "either I will see the electron go through A or through B, > Actually John thinks that If the electron ends up hitting a photographic plate (or a brick wall) after passing the slits then I will see the electron go through both slit

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

If you really want it to be like the MWI explanation of the 2 slit experiment (the one when the photons end up hitting a photographic plate rater than continue into infinite space) then you'd have to modify Bruno's thought experiment experiment a bit. The Helsinki Man steps into the machine and a

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Tuesday, March 24, 2015, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 meekerdb > wrote: > > >> I can provide the needed information right now right here, the >>> Helsinki-John will see Helsinki the Moscow-John will see Moscow and the >>> Washington-John will see Washington. Anything else I can h

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 meekerdb wrote: >> I can provide the needed information right now right here, the >> Helsinki-John will see Helsinki the Moscow-John will see Moscow and the >> Washington-John will see Washington. Anything else I can help you with? > > > Yeah, explain why MWI is significant

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

meekerdb wrote: On 3/23/2015 5:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 24 March 2015 at 08:02, meekerdb > wrote: That every number has a unique successor for one. "Let's call the first number that doesn't have a unique successor n..." Can you prove that

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/23/2015 5:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 24 March 2015 at 08:02, meekerdb > wrote: That every number has a unique successor for one. "Let's call the first number that doesn't have a unique successor n..." Can you prove that n+1 exists and is

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/23/2015 5:54 PM, John Clark wrote: I can provide the needed information right now right here, the Helsinki-John will see Helsinki the Moscow-John will see Moscow and the Washington-John will see Washington. Anything else I can help you with? Yeah, explain why MWI is significantly differen

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

Somebody wrote: > On the other hand if pronouns are avoided, so that referents are clear: > "John is in Helsinki. John is duplicated so duplicate Johns appear in > Moscow and Washington. Then John will be uncertain as to which city John > will find himself in." No so, in the above case the out

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/23/2015 5:02 PM, LizR wrote: On 24 March 2015 at 08:02, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: That every number has a unique successor for one. "Let's call the first number that doesn't have a unique successor n..." That's one possible form of ultrafinitism, but not the on

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

LizR wrote: On 24 March 2015 at 08:02, meekerdb > wrote: That every number has a unique successor for one. "Let's call the first number that doesn't have a unique successor n..." Can you prove that n+1 exists and is unique? Just asserting it is not sufficien

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 24 March 2015 at 08:02, meekerdb wrote: > > That every number has a unique successor for one. > "Let's call the first number that doesn't have a unique successor n..." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at Telmo Menezes wrote: > In my opinion the fundamental problem with the Turing Test is that > passing it is an act of deception. The computer has to fake being a human. > Lying takes intelligence, some have even suggested that the ability to deceive our fellows was of the d

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 21 Mar 2015, at 21:38, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > >> >> >>> >>> It is the p in []p & p, which makes "machine's knowledge" not definable >>> in term of number and machine. S4Grz formalizable at a level, what the >>> machine cannot formaliz

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

Bruno wrote: *The problem is that there are few people serious in logic, in QM and in "philosophy of mind". **And defamation does not help especially in interdisciplinary field.* Which logic? (you mentioned the math-one) but I prefer common sense as we can understand it (IFFF!) these days. Then

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/23/2015 10:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK, but people are also unaware that logicians have made tremendous progress in metamathematics-alias "mathematical logic", so we can talk on things non provable by this or that machine, and that some notion are not definable by the machine (like a no

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/23/2015 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Mar 2015, at 22:57, meekerdb wrote: On 3/22/2015 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Who? (Jean-Paul Delahaye? Bill Taylor? Invite them to present themselves an argument, because if it is a valid argument, you have not yet succeeded to present it he

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/23/2015 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Mar 2015, at 22:45, LizR wrote: On 23 March 2015 at 07:37, meekerdb > wrote: I don't think step 3 is at all essential to the argument. It's nothing but setting up an analogy to Everett's MWI to show how u

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/23/2015 9:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: To admit it is theology consists in admitting that we need some act of faith, so it is a type of religion. It is a belief in the possibility of some reincarnation. The trouble with needing some act of faith is which one? If I'm going to take something

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 23 Mar 2015, at 04:55, Kim Jones wrote: On 23 Mar 2015, at 10:19 am, meekerdb wrote: On 3/22/2015 2:45 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 March 2015 at 07:37, meekerdb wrote: I don't think step 3 is at all essential to the argument. It's nothing but setting up an analogy to Everett's MWI to sh

RE: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness--

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 1:58 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness-- On 21 Mar 2015, at 04:37, 

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 23 Mar 2015, at 00:19, meekerdb wrote: On 3/22/2015 2:45 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 March 2015 at 07:37, meekerdb wrote: I don't think step 3 is at all essential to the argument. It's nothing but setting up an analogy to Everett's MWI to show how uncertainty and determinism are compatible

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: > We can't detect intelligence in machine, does not mean that machine are > not intelligent. We can't detect intelligence in human too. > Thus Sarah Palin could be more intelligent than Albert Einstein, and so in Bruno Marchal's continuing reformulation

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On 3/23/2015 1:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 5:50 PM, John Clark > wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 Kim Jones mailto:kimjo...@ozemail.com.au>> wrote: >> I said it before I'll say it again, only somebody terrified of machine

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 22 Mar 2015, at 22:57, meekerdb wrote: On 3/22/2015 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Who? (Jean-Paul Delahaye? Bill Taylor? Invite them to present themselves an argument, because if it is a valid argument, you have not yet succeeded to present it here). Peter Jones. I am not sure. In m

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 22 Mar 2015, at 22:45, LizR wrote: On 23 March 2015 at 07:37, meekerdb wrote: I don't think step 3 is at all essential to the argument. It's nothing but setting up an analogy to Everett's MWI to show how uncertainty and determinism are compatible - all of which JKC already accepts.

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >