On 15 Jan 2014, at 17:50, Terren Suydam wrote:
Bruno,
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is
necessarily infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the
whole UD*), so, soon or later, he will bet that he is
On 15 Jan 2014, at 16:43, Jason Resch wrote:
On Jan 15, 2014, at 2:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
S
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Telmo Menezes
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
>> wrote:
>> > "SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION: I'm seeking a
>> > compatible, loyal, caring
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> PGC,
>
> No, you have your facts wrong. I did NOT start this. My post you quoted
> was in response to Freq's previous comment that "Also, I am really
> starting to understand why you have difficulty with finding a life
> partner."
>
> Just c
Bruno,
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is necessarily
>> infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the whole UD*), so, soon
>> or later, he will bet that he is in a simulation (or that comp is wrong).
>>
>
>
2014/1/15 Jason Resch
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2014, at 2:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR <
> lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen
On Jan 15, 2014, at 2:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
See my response to Brent on consciousness of an h
PGC,
No, you have your facts wrong. I did NOT start this. My post you quoted was
in response to Freq's previous comment that "Also, I am really starting to
understand why you have difficulty with finding a life partner."
Just check your own post. You will see that comment by Freq down below My
: everything-list
Sent: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 9:45 am
Subject: Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
wrote:
> "SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION: I'm seeking a
> c
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
> wrote:
> > "SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION: I'm seeking a
> > compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who
> > believes that male female rela
Telmo,
Thanks Telmo!
Freq's comment was especially painful as my previous lady companion died of
cancer a few years ago which is why I was looking again.
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:17:44 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
> > wr
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
wrote:
> "SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION: I'm seeking a
> compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who
> believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or
> selfish, but based on mu
Freq,
So now you are on my case because my previous girlfriend died of cancer a
few years back?!
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:26:02 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
> *"SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a
> compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affecti
On 15 Jan 2014, at 09:45, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 21:29, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam
wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
Teehee.
Not a condescending dismissal in anyone else's mind, however, just
On 15 Jan 2014, at 10:39, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 21:49, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical
comment perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which
you didn't...
Lighten
On 15 Jan 2014, at 09:48, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
It's a lot less of "hunch" than the simulation theory in the first
place.
The simulation exists, like prime number exists. Selecting one
computation cannot work, by the UDA, so the only
On 15 Jan 2014, at 09:44, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 21:34, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
See my response to
On 15 January 2014 21:49, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Liz,
>
> Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment
> perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which you didn't...
>
> Lighten up and smile!
> :-)
>
> You can
On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment
perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which you
didn't...
Lighten up and smile!
:-)
You cannot insult someone and ask him or her to smile.
Bruno
On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
It's a lot less of "hunch" than the simulation theory in the first
place.
The simulation exists, like prime number exists. Selecting one
computation cannot work, by the UDA, so the only way to avoid the
measure problem on all simulati
On 15 January 2014 21:29, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
>
> On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
>> condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
>>
>> Teehee.
>
> Not a condescending *dismissal* in anyone else's mind, however, just more
> hand-waving nons
On 15 January 2014 21:34, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>> On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>>> Liz,
>>>
>>> See my response to Brent on con
On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:37, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
If your question is whether or not it is possible to determine
whether we are living in a matrix type simulation I believe it is
because we would not just be living in the simulation but in the
entire reality in which the simulation is
On 15 January 2014 21:22, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2014, at 21:22, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we
>> appear to live in IS the real actual world (though
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers
this question...
Actually to an
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam
wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
Teehee.
Not a condescending dismissal in anyone else's mind, however, just
more hand-waving nonsense that only Edgar could possibly think is a
dismissal.
Thi
On 14 Jan 2014, at 21:22, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen
wrote:
John,
The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the
world we appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily
filtered through our own internal simulation
On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers
this question...
Actually to answer your question properly you have to define
'person', what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a
'simulation'.
All those ter
Assuming this is genuine (and the phraseology certainly sounds like our Mr
Owen) ... all I can say is, anyone who asks for a "non-feminist" in the
21st century deserves to be shot.
So it's fortunate for Edgar that his ego, if not his theory, appears to be
bullet-proof.
On 15 January 2014 15:26,
On 15 January 2014 15:16, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> LIz,
>
> Good one! Thanks for the chuckles!
>
> Thanks! It's the least I can do considering the hours of amusement you've
provided.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscr
On 15 January 2014 15:29, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
> P.S. for Liz: TAKE NOTE! While you might be out of the running to be
> Edgar's companion, perhaps you might know some "non-feminist" women who
> could be?
>
> Probably not in my neck of the woods (New Zealand) -- us Kiwi birds tend
to be a bit t
P.S. for Liz: TAKE NOTE! While you might be out of the running to be
Edgar's companion, perhaps you might know some "non-feminist" women who
could be?
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:26:02 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
> *"SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a
*"SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a
compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who
believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or
selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young and
healthy en
Freq,
But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one.
You?
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
> Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with
> finding a life partner.
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, fre
Brent,
I didn't say that...
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:11:37 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/14/2014 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Freq,
>
> Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond?
> Note I said "that could replace biological neurons one by one
LIz,
Good one! Thanks for the chuckles!
Best,
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:01:38 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 15 January 2014 14:51, freqflyer07281972
>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>
>>> Jason,
>>>
>>> There are no 'synth
On 1/14/2014 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Freq,
Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note I said "that
could replace biological neurons one by one".
But then why do you suppose that replacing the biological neurons with artificial neurons
having the same inp
On 15 January 2014 14:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz,
>
> Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment
> perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which you didn't...
>
> Lighten up and smile!
>
Actually I'm trying to restrain myself from ROFL at the moment, be
Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with
finding a life partner.
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
> OK.
>
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC
So, all is explained. No wonder "he" doesn't get special relativity, with
its free-falling elevators and trains travelling at half the speed of light!
I can almost picture his response...
Albert,
There are no 'relativistic trains' that can travel near light speed. When
there are let me know, and
OK.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Freq,
>
> Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note
> I said "that could replace biological neurons one by one".
>
> S
On 15 January 2014 14:51, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Jason,
>>
>> There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones "one
>> by one". When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer
>> you
Liz,
Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment
perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which you didn't...
Lighten up and smile!
:-)
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:52:46 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> Wow, did you really misunderstand what I was say
Freq,
Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note
I said "that could replace biological neurons one by one".
Send me a few links referencing that being possible please
:-)
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
>
>
>
Wow, did you really misunderstand what I was saying to that extent? You are
starting to remind me of those people who come to the door to persuade me
to accept Jesus as my saviour. They're also incapable of spotting the
intent of a satirical comment, or a metaphor, or drawing a parallel, or -
of co
Liz,
It's a lot less of "hunch" than the simulation theory in the first place.
Why don't you just go back to the Bible and accept the theory that God
created man and the world 4000 years ago? It's EXACTLY the same theory as
the simulation theory, and equally unlikely, just without the modern
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones "one
> by one". When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer
> your question.
>
> You are letting your imagination run wild he
On 15 January 2014 14:37, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz,
>
> If your question is whether or not it is possible to determine whether we
> are living in a matrix type simulation I believe it is because we would not
> just be living in the simulation but in the entire reality in which the
> simulation
Liz,
Thanks for confirming what I've long suspected, that you actually live in
the 19th century!
I have some good news for you, flying machines, robots, and rockets to the
moon are actually real now. If you read my book you'll discover some other
things that are real as well - but not simulate
Liz,
If your question is whether or not it is possible to determine whether we
are living in a matrix type simulation I believe it is because we would not
just be living in the simulation but in the entire reality in which the
simulation is being produced. Thus given human level intelligence, a
Jason,
There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones "one by
one". When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer your
question.
You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no
basis in reality as if they were true. When we study re
On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam wrote:
> condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
>
> Teehee.
Not a condescending *dismissal* in anyone else's mind, however, just more
hand-waving nonsense that only Edgar could possibly think is a dismissal.
This is fun, in a masochistic sort of way, b
On 15 January 2014 09:23, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Brent,
>
> Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing,
> and have zero consciousness.
>
> Do you think Santa Claus is real and knows things and is conscious? I
> can't believe you'd even ask such a dumb question
>
On 15 January 2014 09:20, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Brent,
>
> Please, please, please! Read my New Topic on "How Spacetime emerges from
> computational reality". I answer that QM question in considerable detail. I
> explain why the spin entanglement paradox is not actually paradoxical.
>
> It's the
On 15 January 2014 09:08, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> John,
>
> The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we
> appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through
> our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume otherwise
> in the
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this
>> question...
>>
>> Actually to answer your question properly you h
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz,
>
> See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this
> question...
>
> Actually to answer your question properly you have to define 'person',
> what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a 'simulation'. In the
> det
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Brent,
>
> Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing,
> and have zero consciousness.
>
Edgar,
1. Do you believe an atom-for-atom replacement of you would be conscious?
2. Do you believe replacing your neurons
Brent,
Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing,
and have zero consciousness.
Do you think Santa Claus is real and knows things and is conscious? I can't
believe you'd even ask such a dumb question
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:33:35 PM UTC-5, Brent
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> John,
>
> The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we
> appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through
> our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume otherwise
>
Brent,
Please, please, please! Read my New Topic on "How Spacetime emerges from
computational reality". I answer that QM question in considerable detail. I
explain why the spin entanglement paradox is not actually paradoxical.
It's the real complete answer to your question but nobody even comm
John,
The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we
appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through
our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume otherwise
in the absence of any actual evidence is a waste of time. We can
On 1/14/2014 9:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some single state that
things either have or don't have. There is actually a continuous non-linear spectrum
from a thermostat through a mars rover through all biological organisms t
On 1/14/2014 9:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Glad you aren't criticizing my theory! Thanks! How could I have gotten that
idea I wonder?
:-)
There is only one ACTUAL world or reality which includes everything that exists by
definition. There are NO POSSIBLE worlds except the one that is A
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> I never said "there is only one POSSIBLE world", I clearly stated there
> is only one ACTUAL world and many actual simulations of that world in the
> minds of biological organisms.
>
OK, but is the world you and I are familiar with the real
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jason,
>
> There is only one reality because I define reality as all that exists.
>
That's fine and I agree with it, but I asked how you know there is only one
physical universe.
>
> It is conceivable there is more than one physical univ
Liz,
See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this
question...
Actually to answer your question properly you have to define 'person', what
you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a 'simulation'. In the details of
those definitions will be your answer... It's arbitr
Brent,
Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some single
state that things either have or don't have. There is actually a continuous
non-linear spectrum from a thermostat through a mars rover through all
biological organisms to a human and possibly beyond. Each of these
Brent,
Glad you aren't criticizing my theory! Thanks! How could I have gotten that
idea I wonder?
:-)
There is only one ACTUAL world or reality which includes everything that
exists by definition. There are NO POSSIBLE worlds except the one that is
ACTUAL. It's existence falsifies all others.
Jason,
There is only one reality because I define reality as all that exists.
It is conceivable there is more than one physical universe in that reality
but until you give me some evidence of it I'm not going to waste my time
thinking about it. As I've pointed out most of the reasons cosmologis
2014/1/14 Edgar L. Owen
> Liz,
>
> That's one possibility but more likely is that you just don't take the
> time to read and consider what I've actually written in your over eagerness
> to criticize...
>
>
The more likely is that you just talking garbage since the beginning...
your present time i
On 13 Jan 2014, at 18:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Terren,
Don't tell me what's in my theory. There are NO infinity of logical
realities being computed. There is no Platonia
You seem to be referencing Bruno's comp. There is NO 'Platonia' in
my theory.
Comp needs only the arithmetical P
On 14 January 2014 20:24, meekerdb wrote:
> On 1/13/2014 11:16 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 14 January 2014 19:42, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> On 1/13/2014 10:18 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
> So you don't think a discussion of what counts as an AI is a good idea?
> OK, that's fine by me (you're the one who wants t
On 1/13/2014 11:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 19:42, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:
On 1/13/2014 10:18 PM, LizR wrote:
...
So you don't think a discussion of what counts as an AI is a good idea? OK, that's fine
by me (you're the one who wants to discuss it, after al
On 14 January 2014 19:42, meekerdb wrote:
> On 1/13/2014 10:18 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 14 January 2014 19:08, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> On 1/13/2014 10:00 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>> On 14 January 2014 17:11, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>> That will come as a shock to the programmers who write AI for computer
On 1/13/2014 10:18 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 19:08, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:
On 1/13/2014 10:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 17:11, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
That will come as a shock to the programmers who write AI f
On 14 January 2014 19:08, meekerdb wrote:
> On 1/13/2014 10:00 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 14 January 2014 17:11, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> That will come as a shock to the programmers who write AI for computer
>> games. It's the part that allows the computer to beat you.
>>
>
> I know the gaming ind
On 1/13/2014 10:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 17:11, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:
That will come as a shock to the programmers who write AI for computer
games. It's
the part that allows the computer to beat you.
I know the gaming industry uses the term for c
On 14 January 2014 17:27, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
> Now the self-deluded crank deigns to condescend!
>
> PRICELESS!!
>
> Could you call your movie/comic book "Reality"? And could it feature a man
> who goes around trying to convince the rest of the world that
On 14 January 2014 17:11, meekerdb wrote:
> That will come as a shock to the programmers who write AI for computer
> games. It's the part that allows the computer to beat you.
>
I know the gaming industry uses the term for characters in games, but I've
been assuming that in this sort of discus
On 14 January 2014 16:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz,
>
> Of course it's possible to create an AI. It's done all the time. I've
> programmed a number of them myself.
>
> I'm sure the artifical intelligence community will be intested to know
that. OK, to recap, we were talking about whether a pers
That will come as a shock to the programmers who write AI for computer games. It's the
part that allows the computer to beat you.
Brent
On 1/13/2014 7:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
That's not "artificial intelligence". Completely different concept...
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 10
On 1/13/2014 6:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
For God's sakes, the "characters in a video game'" don't know anything. They are
completely fictional characters. You seem to have lost all touch with reality in your
zeal to find something to criticize. I can't believe we are actually having t
On 1/13/2014 6:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Jesus Brent don't you understand basic English syntax and logic, or are you being
purposefully dense?
I never said "there is only one POSSIBLE world",
You wrote below, "No, there are NOT many POSSIBLE worlds." We're pretty sure there's one
Liz,
Of course it's possible to create an AI. It's done all the time. I've
programmed a number of them myself.
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:28:47 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 14 January 2014 16:13, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> That's not "artificial intelligence". Completely d
On 14 January 2014 16:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Terren,
>
> Sorry if it takes considerable serious effort to understand reality. If I
> could put it in a comic book or sci fi movie for you I would...
>
> At the moment it seems more like a soap opera :-)
--
You received this message because you
Ooh you *are *awful, but I like you.
On 14 January 2014 16:34, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHEHEHEHEHEHEHE!!
>
> As much as I love The Matrix (and I do love me some Matrix) and popcorn
> (ditto), I gotta tell ya, edgar, there is no better entertainment that
> see
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHEHEHEHEHEHEHE!!
As much as I love The Matrix (and I do love me some Matrix) and popcorn
(ditto), I gotta tell ya, edgar, there is no better entertainment that
seeing a grown man, who has been eating a steady diet of his own bullshit
for years (it seems, as you do appear
On 14 January 2014 16:13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz,
>
> That's not "artificial intelligence". Completely different concept...
>
No it isn't. If we could create an AI, we could put it inside a simulated
world, and then it would be equivalent to a character living in a video
game. So there would
Liz,
That's not "artificial intelligence". Completely different concept...
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:00:09 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 14 January 2014 14:49, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Come on Jason, the whole notion of 'living inside a video game' is
>> adolescent fan
I meant the question of using the experience of a present moment (built
from an illusory construction) as evidence of a fundamental "p-time". You
haven't answered that - how you could logically make that move. It's not
arrogance, because I challenged you to answer that one question and you
have ign
On 14 January 2014 14:49, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jason,
>
> Come on Jason, the whole notion of 'living inside a video game' is
> adolescent fantasy. Is there some real person living inside the game? If so
> he has to actually be living outside the game (a la Matrix strapped to a
> couch with wire
Brent,
For God's sakes, the "characters in a video game'" don't know anything.
They are completely fictional characters. You seem to have lost all touch
with reality in your zeal to find something to criticize. I can't believe
we are actually having this discussion... Do you also believe ghosts
Brent,
Jesus Brent don't you understand basic English syntax and logic, or are you
being purposefully dense?
I never said "there is only one POSSIBLE world", I clearly stated there is
only one ACTUAL world and many actual simulations of that world in the
minds of biological organisms. I even p
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jason,
>
> Reality is not 'small', it's very very large. It's just not infinite.
>
You believe there is only one physical universe, right? What is your
justification for this? How do you know there wasn't another big bang
really far away
Terren,
Where have you been? I did answer this question. You create a biological
robot by putting together the exact parts that constitute a human being
down to the last cell and molecule. The result will be a conscious human
being unless you believe in some nonsensical concept of soul or ghost
On 1/13/2014 6:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
What makes some computations real is that they are computing real and actual processes
of reality. They are actually running in reality computing the actual state of reality
instead of running in some teen ager's fantasy or video game. That sho
On 1/13/2014 6:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
No, there are NOT many POSSIBLE worlds.
So there is only one possible world. That would seem to imply the world is determinstic.
How do you account for quantum randomness? Are you assuming hidden variables or
hyperdeterminism?
There are m
Edgar,
The Matrix style simulation is a very special case and it's description in
which a biological being has its sensory data shunted by a virtual
interface is beside the point.
Probably a better example is the "uploading" scenario, where the doctor
doesn't restore your mind in a physical body,
Brent,
What makes some computations real is that they are computing real and
actual processes of reality. They are actually running in reality computing
the actual state of reality instead of running in some teen ager's fantasy
or video game. That should be obvious...
Example the computations
301 - 400 of 926 matches
Mail list logo
