On Wed, May 8, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
To believe in events without cause or reason is ... pseudo-religion.
Well, a pseudo-religion is certainly superior to a full fledged religion,
but a religion that is not illogical is not a religion, so please explain
to me exactly why
On 08 May 2013, at 11:56, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
there is no random decay or anything else
There is no way you can
On 5/8/2013 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2013, at 11:56, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 May 2013, at 20:55, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
there is no random decay
I (John M) feel in some remarks my text has been mixed with words of John
Clark's. I never referred to that 'butterfly' hoax. I have second thoughts
whenever someone comes up with (Q?-)physical marvels showing 'internal'
randomness: the marvels are well fictionized to show such.
Even thinking in
On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 12:43:08 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, May 7, 2013 John Mikes jam...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Experimental evidence is a fairy-tale
Craig Weinberg and perhaps others on this list think so too, are you also
a fan of astrology and numerology as he is?
On Mon, May 6, 2013 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
there is no random decay or anything else
There is no way you can deduce that from pure reason and the experimental
evidence strongly indicates that you are wrong about that.
only things that happen without our - so far - accessed
John Clark:
the reason I 'post' is to get argumentation BEYOND the general negative you
submit. Experimental evidence is a fairy-tale based on assumptions upon
presumptions believed to be 'true'. Like: the 'physical world' in
conventional science.
I would love to learn from you (and others) if
Dear Bruno,
As a former and recovering fundamentalist Christian, I am 100% in agreement
with your words above. I merely wish that I could communicate better with
you.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 29 Apr 2013, at 11:32, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On
On 5/7/2013 1:16 PM, John Mikes wrote:
John Clark:
the reason I 'post' is to get argumentation BEYOND the general negative you submit.
Experimental evidence is a fairy-tale based on assumptions upon presumptions believed to
be 'true'. Like: the 'physical world' in conventional science.
I would
On 05 May 2013, at 18:06, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 02 May 2013, at 23:54, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Well, we can hope the best, but we can fear the worst. Even the
bitcoin has
made a little crack due to exaggerate
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 May 2013, at 23:54, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Well, we can hope the best, but we can fear the worst. Even the bitcoin has
made a little crack due to exaggerate speculation.
The exaggerate speculation phase was to be
The difference is that MWI cleared up a serious ambiguity in the Copenhagen
Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, namely in determining what exactly is a
observation and who exactly is a observer; but even if it existed your
hypothetical super duper general theory of Evolution (which you don't
On 06 May 2013, at 08:52, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 02 May 2013, at 23:54, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Well, we can hope the best, but we can fear the worst. Even the
bitcoin has
made a little crack due to exaggerate
John:
there is no random decay or anything else - only things that happen without
our - so far - accessed explanation. 1000years ago there was more 'random'.
We would not see 'order' (predicatibility) if anything could interfere
randomly.
*
*that doesn't mean a AI can not be built...*
AI could
On 02 May 2013, at 23:54, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Well, we can hope the best, but we can fear the worst. Even the
bitcoin has
made a little crack due to exaggerate speculation.
The exaggerate speculation phase was to be expected. Not long ago,
people where saying that nobody would even trust
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 May 2013, at 23:54, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Well, we can hope the best, but we can fear the worst. Even the bitcoin has
made a little crack due to exaggerate speculation.
The exaggerate speculation phase was to be
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
To make a AI by reverse engineering it would be enough to have a map of
how information flows in the brain,
I'd say you would also have to deal with neuroplasticity. The process
that makes the brain grow is part of
On Thu, May 2, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Things like Hebbian learning and artificial models of neurons have
explanatory power
Yes but Donald Hebb didn't just say it happens because of emergence, he
explained exactly how these higher level laws worked.
if you just
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 5:43 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Things like Hebbian learning and artificial models of neurons have
explanatory power
Yes but Donald Hebb didn't just say it happens because of emergence,
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:53 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/2/2013 4:39 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
think it's more feasible to try to reverse-engineer the
morphogenetic algorithms encoded in the DNA. We would still not
understand the creation, but would have a greater chance
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:48 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/2/2013 4:12 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:56 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/2/2013 3:32 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I'm simply pointing out that you may be under the influence of
On 5/2/2013 11:47 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Western puritanism also rejects murder.
Not at all. It just regulates when murder is acceptable and when it's
not. Other cultures (for example, buddhists) reject murder much more
strongly.
You're confusing homicide and murder. Murder IS the kind of
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:04 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/2/2013 11:47 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Western puritanism also rejects murder.
Not at all. It just regulates when murder is acceptable and when it's
not. Other cultures (for example, buddhists) reject murder much more
On 03 May 2013, at 03:49, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
I agree 99.99% with you here! I only differ in saying that the
copy process is not exact and thus is equivalent to a write.
They are transcriptase reverse enzymes, so a case can be made for
writing. There would be no
On 01 May 2013, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Darwin knew for a fact that he was conscious.
Really?
Yes really.
References please.
No.
I was asking because the term consciousness seems more recent to me,
and I am not sure it
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 May 2013, at 17:33, Telmo Menezes wrote to John Clark:
At this point I'm not even talking about Science but logic and a distaste
for cheerfully and strongly believing in 2 contradictory things.
I believe that
On Wed, May 1, 2013, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Artificial neural networks have been trained to fly planes, invest in the
stock market, converts speech to text, recognise handwriting and so on and
so on.
True.
For most of these cases, nobody understands how the network
On Wed, May 1, 2013 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It maybe that achieving intelligence via the evolutionary paths
available to animals on Earth did entail consciousness.
MAYBE?! There is quite simply NO way Evolution could have produced
consciousness (and you and I know with
Would anyone here say that a conditional (e.g., if/else)
statement (in some program) is conscious?
I think such statements may form the atoms of consciousness, as they
represent the point at which a program's behavior diverges based on
the inspection of some information.
Conditional
Brent,
thanks for your remarks - I usually value them - now I think you went a bit
overboard.
*...Radical agnosticism, like solipism, is impossible to act on...*
*
*
I presume you checked all knowable and not knowable cases to decide the
'impossibility'. How 'radical'? more than you find
On 02 May 2013, at 15:11, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 01 May 2013, at 17:33, Telmo Menezes wrote to John Clark:
At this point I'm not even talking about Science but logic and a
distaste
for cheerfully and strongly
On 02 May 2013, at 16:47, Jason Resch wrote:
Would anyone here say that a conditional (e.g., if/else)
statement (in some program) is conscious?
I think such statements may form the atoms of consciousness, as they
represent the point at which a program's behavior diverges based on
the
On 5/2/2013 7:02 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Artificial neural networks have been trained to fly planes, invest in the
stock
market, converts speech to text, recognise handwriting and so on and
On 5/2/2013 7:29 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It maybe that achieving intelligence via the evolutionary paths
available to
animals on Earth did entail consciousness.
MAYBE?! There is quite simply NO
On 5/2/2013 7:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Would anyone here say that a conditional (e.g., if/else) statement (in some program)
is conscious?
I don't think so. We make if/else choices subconsciously all the time. My introspection
tells me that conscious thought is a kind of narrative story I
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/2/2013 7:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Would anyone here say that a conditional (e.g., if/else) statement (in
some program) is conscious?
I don't think so. We make if/else choices subconsciously all the time.
My
Brent,
I think you may be reading my question in the wrong way. I didn't mean to
equate your consciousness with that of every if/else decision you make, but
rather ask something like, What does the shortest possible program that is
conscious look like?
I have trouble seeing why some short piece
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Stephen Paul King kingstephenp...@gmail.com
wrote:
Brent,
I think you may be reading my question in the wrong way. I didn't mean to
equate your consciousness with that of every if/else decision you make, but
rather ask something like, What does the shortest
On 5/2/2013 2:18 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/2/2013 7:47 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Would anyone here say that a conditional (e.g., if/else) statement
(in some
program) is
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Stephen Paul King
kingstephenp...@gmail.com wrote:
Brent,
I think you may be reading my question in the wrong way. I didn't mean
to equate your consciousness with that of every
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 May 2013, at 15:11, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 May 2013, at 17:33, Telmo Menezes wrote to John Clark:
At this point I'm not even talking
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:02 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Artificial neural networks have been trained to fly planes, invest in
the stock market, converts speech to text, recognise handwriting and so on
and so
On 5/2/2013 3:32 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I'm simply pointing out that you may be under the influence of
christian morality even though you reject christianity. This is not
surprising, we grew in a western civilisation that was greatly
influenced by christianity. In this case I believe you are
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:56 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/2/2013 3:32 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I'm simply pointing out that you may be under the influence of
christian morality even though you reject christianity. This is not
surprising, we grew in a western civilisation that
think it's more feasible to try to reverse-engineer the
morphogenetic algorithms encoded in the DNA. We would still not
understand the creation, but would have a greater chance of success,
and we would understand how to create the conditions for our creation
to grow. Fully understanding a
On 5/2/2013 4:12 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:56 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/2/2013 3:32 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I'm simply pointing out that you may be under the influence of
christian morality even though you reject christianity. This is not
On 5/2/2013 4:39 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
think it's more feasible to try to reverse-engineer the
morphogenetic algorithms encoded in the DNA. We would still not
understand the creation, but would have a greater chance of success,
and we would understand how to create the conditions for our
Hi Brent,
I agree 99.99% with you here! I only differ in saying that the copy
process is not exact and thus is equivalent to a write.
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 7:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/2/2013 4:39 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
think it's more feasible to try to
Hi Brent,
You seem to assume that the read and copy operations are
of something immutable. I submit that there is no 3p invariant at all!
There is only the potential infinity of 'similar' copies.
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Stephen Paul King kingstephenp...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Brent,
On 5/2/2013 6:51 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
You seem to assume that the read and copy operations are of something immutable. I
submit that there is no 3p invariant at all! There is only the potential infinity of
'similar' copies.
No, of course there are mutations. It's
Hi Brent,
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:48 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/29/2013 2:18 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I also believe that some
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
The facts are undeniable, either Charles Darwin was wrong or
consciousness is a byproduct of intelligence. And I don't think Charles
Darwin was wrong.
I don't think Charles Darwin ever wrote anything about consciousness.
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
I understand the point, I just find that there's something rather
puritanical about this view. Tweaking a computer program to perform a
task well is hard and real work, laying in an isolation tank trying to
observe
On 01 May 2013, at 16:16, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Brent,
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:48 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 4/29/2013 2:18 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:08 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
I understand the point, I just find that there's something rather
puritanical about this view. Tweaking a computer program to perform a
task
On 01 May 2013, at 16:35, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
The facts are undeniable, either Charles Darwin was wrong or
consciousness is a byproduct of intelligence. And I don't think
Charles Darwin was wrong.
I don't think Charles
I don't reject it, I just want to know the difference between saying shit
happens and saying it happened because of emergence. Yes, complicated
systems behave in ways that are, well, complicated; but tell me something I
didn't know.
The difference is that at some point people realised that it
On 01 May 2013, at 17:33, Telmo Menezes wrote to John Clark:
At this point I'm not even talking about Science but logic and a
distaste
for cheerfully and strongly believing in 2 contradictory things.
I believe that human intelligence is a product of Darwinian evolution
and I'm agnostic on
On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 10:35:24 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
javascript:wrote:
The facts are undeniable, either Charles Darwin was wrong or
consciousness is a byproduct of intelligence. And I don't think Charles
Darwin was
On 5/1/2013 7:16 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
What would
constitute a solution to the hard problem that could be tested? I think
the best we will be able to do is to understand human brains to the point
that we can manipulate thoughts and emotions as reported by subjects and we
can make AI robots
On 5/1/2013 7:35 AM, John Clark wrote:
One possibility, of course, is that consciousness is the fundamental
stuff.
Yes, I think that is by far the most likely possibility! But if that is indeed true then
its meaningless to ask, as so many on this list do, what consciousness is made of
On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 12:57:45 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 5/1/2013 7:16 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
What would
constitute a solution to the hard problem that could be tested? I
think
the best we will be able to do is to understand human brains to the
point
that we can
On Wed, May 1, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Darwin knew for a fact that he was conscious.
Really?
Yes really.
References please.
No.
you need to grasp the FPI and go farer than step two to see this.
Which Foreign Policy Initiative are you referring to?
John K
On 5/1/2013 8:08 AM, John Clark wrote:
I don't see how the two things are related.
If you believe that intelligence and consciousness are unrelated then logically there is
no alternative, you must believe that Charles Darwin was wrong. I don't think Charles
Darwin was wrong, I think
Telmo:
I would not draw nth conclusions on a plain assumption.
Particles (IMO) are explanatory presumptions upon (mostly math-phys)
temporary explanatory 'understanding' of some phenomena we got. So are the
reasons for 'dacay' taken from the limited access we have so far.
- The rest of it goes
On 5/1/2013 12:34 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Telmo:
I would not draw nth conclusions on a plain assumption.
Particles (IMO) are explanatory presumptions upon (mostly math-phys) temporary
explanatory 'understanding' of some phenomena we got.
Tables and chairs are also explanatory presumptions for
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:34 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Telmo:
I would not draw nth conclusions on a plain assumption.
Particles (IMO) are explanatory presumptions upon (mostly math-phys)
temporary explanatory 'understanding' of some phenomena we got. So are the
reasons for
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I don't really understand why you insist that intelligence is a harder
problem than consciousness.
As I've said many times and people just shrug off, Evolution figured out
how to make a brain that produces intense emotion about
On 30 Apr 2013, at 01:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/29/2013 2:18 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I also believe that some isolated tribes assume everything is
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I don't really understand why you insist that intelligence is a harder
problem than consciousness.
As I've said many times and people just shrug off,
On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:45:48 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:04 PM, John Clark johnk...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com javascript:
wrote:
I don't really understand why you insist that
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I also believe that some isolated tribes assume everything is conscious.
If they're right then that certainly solves the consciousness problem and we
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Apr 2013, at 18:40, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Apr 2013, at 02:14, Telmo Menezes wrote:
It wasn't a trick question, but it's a valid
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, April 22, 2013 10:51:29 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 5:55 AM, John Clark johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
Hi,
A resent paper by A.D. Wissner-Gross C.E. Freer suggest that
...intelligent
behavior in general spontaneously emerges from an agent’s effort to ensure
its freedom of action in the future. According to this theory, intelligent
systems move towards those configurations which maximize their
On 29 Apr 2013, at 11:32, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
You might take a look at my Plotinus paper which suggest a lexicon
between
Plotinus and Arithmetic. Plotinus might have appreciated it as
Neoplatonism
announces a
On 4/29/2013 8:35 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi,
A resent paper by A.D. Wissner-Gross C.E. Freer suggest that ...intelligent
behavior in general spontaneously emerges from an agent’s effort to ensure its freedom
of action in the future.
I wonder if Wissner-Gross and Freer are married?
On 4/29/2013 7:15 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
One of the terrifying things about the previous scenario is that
computers might start evolving from a vantage point where they
recognise emotions like being offended as a weakness.
Or worse, they are offended.
There is a strange loop (à la
On 4/29/2013 2:18 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I also believe that some isolated tribes assume everything is conscious.
If they're right then that certainly
On Monday, April 29, 2013 7:48:34 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 4/29/2013 2:18 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:04 PM, John Clark
johnk...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comjavascript:
wrote:
I also believe
On 23 Apr 2013, at 22:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/23/2013 12:27 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 01:02:59PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 , Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
If so and consciousness is a all or nothing matter and is not on a
On 24 Apr 2013, at 05:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 7:27:02 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 07:38:36AM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If you are sleepwalking, are 'you' conscious or not conscious?
Dunno. As far as I know, I've never done it.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 01:02:59PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 , Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
If so and consciousness is a all or nothing matter and is not on a
continuum then you should vividly remember the very instant you went to
sleep last night. Do
On 22 Apr 2013, at 19:02, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 , Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
If so and consciousness is a all or nothing matter and is not on
a continuum then you should vividly remember the very instant you
went to sleep last night. Do you?
Why? I
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:27:03 AM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 01:02:59PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 , Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript:
wrote:
If so and consciousness is a all or nothing matter and is not on a
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 04:40:10AM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:27:03 AM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 01:02:59PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 , Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript:
wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 8:39:18 AM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 04:40:10AM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:27:03 AM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 01:02:59PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Mon,
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I also believe that some isolated tribes assume everything is conscious.
If they're right then that certainly solves the consciousness problem and
we can move on to solving the REALLY hard problem, figuring out why some
things
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
The last time I had general anaesthetic, I remember the count of the
anaesthetist up to 4, but not any number higher than that.
What was the point of that? I thought you were supposed to do the counting
not the
On 4/23/2013 12:27 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 01:02:59PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 , Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
If so and consciousness is a all or nothing matter and is not on a
continuum then you should vividly remember the
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 07:38:36AM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If you are sleepwalking, are 'you' conscious or not conscious?
Dunno. As far as I know, I've never done it. Have you asked a
sleepwalker? I've never known any.
--
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 04:01:00PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
The last time I had general anaesthetic, I remember the count of the
anaesthetist up to 4, but not any number higher than that.
What was the
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 7:27:02 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 07:38:36AM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If you are sleepwalking, are 'you' conscious or not conscious?
Dunno. As far as I know, I've never done it. Have you asked a
sleepwalker? I've
On 21 Apr 2013, at 18:40, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 21 Apr 2013, at 02:14, Telmo Menezes wrote:
It wasn't a trick question, but it's a valid one when someone
invokes
utilitarianism -- a concept that can be
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 5:55 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
There is an entire field of physics, for example, dedicated to studying
emergence in a rigorous fashion
True, and the key word is rigorous
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Without the axiom that intelligent behavior implies consciousness it
would be entirely reasonable to conclude that you are the only conscious
being in the universe.
Now we're getting to the heart of it.
Yes.
That axiom
On Monday, April 22, 2013 10:51:29 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 5:55 AM, John Clark johnk...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.comjavascript:
wrote:
...
The missing part I don't
On 22 avr. 2013, at 19:44, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Without the axiom that intelligent behavior implies consciousness it would
be entirely reasonable to conclude that you are the only conscious being
in
On 20 Apr 2013, at 13:51, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 4:15:17 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Apr 2013, at 19:52, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:59:34 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Apr 2013, at 22:05, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On
On 21 Apr 2013, at 02:14, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:32 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
You may be pedantic about the use of anthropomorphic language
but I am
not.
It can
101 - 200 of 293 matches
Mail list logo
