Brent,
No, there are NOT many POSSIBLE worlds. There are many ACTUAL simulations
of a single computational reality, and all of those simulations are not
arbitrary sci fi scenarios but solidly based in the actual logic of reality
at least in their essentials. Because these are real world views o
On 1/13/2014 5:49 PM, 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 wires and tubes)
On 1/13/2014 4:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Terren,
No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to consider not just
what is happening in the simulated being's 'mind' or simulation but the whole context of
the simulation. I'll try again. Even if a simulated world is entirely
On Jan 13, 2014, at 6:10 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" wrote:
Terren,
No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to
consider not just what is happening in the simulated being's 'mind'
or simulation but the whole context of the simulation. I'll try
again. Even if a simulated
On 14 January 2014 13:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> 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...
>
Yes of course, I couldn't possibly have any valid criticisms, after a
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...
Anyway thanks for letting us know you don't have any theory of reality
yourself in spite of your incessant proclamations as to
On 14 January 2014 13:23, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz,
>
> If your internal simulation of reality is not consistent with the
> essentials of reality you cannot function or exist. That depends on
> consistency with the LOGIC of reality, NOT how it is represented internally
> by the qualia you menti
Liz,
If your internal simulation of reality is not consistent with the
essentials of reality you cannot function or exist. That depends on
consistency with the LOGIC of reality, NOT how it is represented internally
by the qualia you mention (which are also covered extensively in my book).
I ma
On 14 January 2014 13:19, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz,
>
> That doesn't follow. Don't you understand basic logical forms?
>
It was as logical as your "argument".
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group
On 14 January 2014 12:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Dear Flyer,
>
> You must be hard up for entertainment. Perhaps you should try watching the
> Matrix one more time with popcorn or try contributing something meaningful
> to the discussion?
>
He just did. He pointed out a number of ways in which yo
Liz,
That doesn't follow. Don't you understand basic logical forms?
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 7:15:04 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 14 January 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Terren,
>>
>> No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to
>> consider not just wha
On 14 January 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Terren,
>
> No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to
> consider not just what is happening in the simulated being's 'mind' or
> simulation but the whole context of the simulation. I'll try again. Even if
> a simulated worl
Terren,
No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to consider
not just what is happening in the simulated being's 'mind' or simulation
but the whole context of the simulation. I'll try again. Even if a
simulated world is entirely convincing in the short term it still MUST
Dear Flyer,
You must be hard up for entertainment. Perhaps you should try watching the
Matrix one more time with popcorn or try contributing something meaningful
to the discussion?
:-)
Edgar
On Monday, January 13, 2014 5:44:47 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
> Haha! Ya Liz, I think you
Haha! Ya Liz, I think your point is very well taken.
On my part, I am finding it infinitely amusing that a guy who is so
obviously self-deluded and unable to grok any of the most basic criticisms
of his "theory" from the many textbook gedanken experiments so
compassionately offered by people (
On 10 January 2014 07:04, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Terren,
>
> First, it will only detract, not help, to try to shoehorn my theories into
> standard categories. It's an entirely new theory.
>
This is fine if you are writing fiction, but in science you have to be
prepared for some parts of your the
On 9 January 2014 08:58, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Terren,
>
> All human babies are automatically consciousness.
>
> I am definitely going to sue that anaesthetist.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group
On 1/13/2014 10:16 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Terren,
I just explained how it is possible to tell if your particular simulation is accurate or
not. The fact of your continued existence. If it didn't accurately model the logic of
external reality you wouldn't be here.
That's poor logic chopping
On 1/13/2014 9:32 AM, 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.
There is enormous evidence and theoretical j
On 14 January 2014 08:48, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Until you start addressing questions head on, rather than ignoring them or
> dismissing them insultingly (e.g. adolescent sci-fi), nobody here is going
> to take you all that seriously. And if you don't care about being taken
> seriously, then wh
On 14 January 2014 07:16, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Terren,
>
> I just explained how it is possible to tell if your particular simulation
> is accurate or not. The fact of your continued existence. If it didn't
> accurately model the logic of external reality you wouldn't be here. The
> 'Matrix' sce
On 14 January 2014 02:20, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Bruno,
>
> I use computation in the STANDARD sense of computer science. Computer
> programs compute results. Reality computes the current state of the
> universe. It's very simple, straightforward and standard usage.
>
Standard usage is how it was
On 14 January 2014 02:11, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Bruno,
>
> You first assume all mathematics somehow exists 'out there' independent of
> humans. If that were true and actual reality consisted of all math sitting
> there in some static state, then you might be correct, but this is an
> enormous un
On 14 January 2014 01:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Terren,
>
> There is no "infinity of simulations". We are talking about actual reality
> rather than sci fi fantasy here, or at least we should be.
>
So you don't think there is any such thing as arithmetical realism. OK.
>
> Every biological org
Edgar,
A simulation can be utterly precise and impossible to distinguish from
sensory data, in principle. You seem to be ignoring that by your own theory
it is possible to simulate the logic of external reality precisely, as that
is what you are positing happens at a fundamental level.
I am askin
On 13 Jan 2014, at 14:20, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
I use computation in the STANDARD sense of computer science.
Computer programs compute results. Reality computes the current
state of the universe.
So reality is a computer program? That seems like digital physics
thesis.
It'
2014/1/13 Edgar L. Owen
> Terren,
>
> I just explained how it is possible to tell if your particular simulation
> is accurate or not. The fact of your continued existence. If it didn't
> accurately model the logic of external reality you wouldn't be here. The
> 'Matrix' scenario that you can't di
On 13 Jan 2014, at 13:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Yes, some things ARE obvious. For example the fact that we exist.
Isn't that obvious? :-)
Who "we" ? The universal numbers?
Your consciousness here-and-now is, for you, obvious. I grant that.
Nothing more.
I bet on this, and believ
Edgar,
On 13 Jan 2014, at 13:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
You ask "where does mind come from?" Obviously it arises via evolution
like all biological structures.
Not only that is not obvious, but this might be false. It might be
locally true for the human mind differentiation, but the ro
Terren,
I just explained how it is possible to tell if your particular simulation
is accurate or not. The fact of your continued existence. If it didn't
accurately model the logic of external reality you wouldn't be here. The
'Matrix' scenario that you can't distinguish between all possible
si
Edgar,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:32 PM, 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
>
If what you're positing is a fundamental computational reality, then
there's nothing in principl
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.
There is enormous evidence and theoretical justification for Present moment
P-time. It's
Hi Edgar,
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Terren,
>
> There is no "infinity of simulations". We are talking about actual reality
> rather than sci fi fantasy here, or at least we should be.
>
Given that your knowledge of reality necessarily comes from your own mental
si
Jason,
Reality is not 'small', it's very very large. It's just not infinite. See
my other post of an hour ago for an explanation of why nothing real and
actual can be infinite
We explain what we can observe. If you have evidence of some alternate
physics somewhere only then you can ask me
On Jan 13, 2014, at 6:44 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" wrote:
Terren,
There is no "infinity of simulations". We are talking about actual
reality rather than sci fi fantasy here, or at least we should be.
Edgar,
How do you know reality is really as small and limited as you think it
is? Some fish
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Bruno,
>
> I use computation in the STANDARD sense of computer science. Computer
> programs compute results.
Computers compute results. Computer programs describe how computers
compute results. This is all circular and nothing was defined, i
Bruno,
I use computation in the STANDARD sense of computer science. Computer
programs compute results. Reality computes the current state of the
universe. It's very simple, straightforward and standard usage.
See my other post on the same topic for more detail.
Edgar
On Friday, January
Bruno,
You first assume all mathematics somehow exists 'out there' independent of
humans. If that were true and actual reality consisted of all math sitting
there in some static state, then you might be correct, but this is an
enormous unwarranted assumption with no empirical evidence.
The muc
Bruno,
Yes, some things ARE obvious. For example the fact that we exist. Isn't
that obvious? :-)
But I agree we must be careful not be led astray with unfounded
'interpretations' of the obvious. The wise man properly discerns what is
clearly obvious (eg. that we exist, and we exist in a presen
Bruno,
You ask "where does mind come from?" Obviously it arises via evolution like
all biological structures. There should be no question about that. Is it
some sort of mystery in your 'comp'?
And I'm using "computable" and "computations" in the STANDARD sense it's
used in computer science, as
Terren,
There is no "infinity of simulations". We are talking about actual reality
rather than sci fi fantasy here, or at least we should be.
Every biological organism has one and only one internal mental simulation
of its external reality environment. This whole system, external world
simulat
On 11 Jan 2014, at 01:06, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 12:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Second, a reality can exist without being computed. the best and
simple example is arithmetic. Only a very tiny part of it is
computable (this is provable if you accep
On 11 Jan 2014, at 00:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Second, a reality can exist without being computed. the best and
simple example is arithmetic. Only a very tiny part of it is
computable (this is provable if you accept the Church Turing thesis).
But it's
On 11 January 2014 17:33, meekerdb wrote:
> On 1/10/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 11 January 2014 16:02, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> On 1/10/2014 4:06 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>> On 11 January 2014 12:54, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/10/2014 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> Second, a reality can
On 1/10/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 16:02, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:
On 1/10/2014 4:06 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 12:54, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Second, a rea
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 6:06 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 11 January 2014 12:54, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> On 1/10/2014 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Second, a reality can exist without being computed. the best and simple
>> example is arithmetic. Only a very tiny part of it is computable (this is
>>
On 11 January 2014 16:02, meekerdb wrote:
> On 1/10/2014 4:06 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 11 January 2014 12:54, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> On 1/10/2014 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Second, a reality can exist without being computed. the best and simple
>> example is arithmetic. Only a very tiny
On 1/10/2014 4:06 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 12:54, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Second, a reality can exist without being computed. the best and simple
example is
arithmetic. Only a very tiny part of it is comput
On 11 January 2014 12:54, meekerdb wrote:
> On 1/10/2014 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Second, a reality can exist without being computed. the best and simple
> example is arithmetic. Only a very tiny part of it is computable (this is
> provable if you accept the Church Turing thesis).
>
> B
On 1/10/2014 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Second, a reality can exist without being computed. the best and simple example is
arithmetic. Only a very tiny part of it is computable (this is provable if you accept
the Church Turing thesis).
But it's questionable whether it "exists".
Brent
--
Y
On 10 Jan 2014, at 04:16, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
So? I'm not really interested in Bruno's comp as I don't think it
actually applies to reality. I'll stick with my computational
reality for the time being at least...
But, please, define it. Nobody has the slightest idea of what you are
On 10 Jan 2014, at 03:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Your comp is obviously not my comp. Don't tell me what my comp does
or doesn't do...
But then, please, define your comp. "my" comp is only a very weak form
of computationalism; which implies all the know standard form of comp.
I am stil
On 10 Jan 2014, at 03:38, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 15:34, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One merely needs to show
it doesn't properly describe reality as I've just done. If you even
assume a computational universe in the first place you have to
On 10 Jan 2014, at 03:34, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One merely needs to show
it doesn't properly describe reality as I've just done.
?
If you even assume a computational universe in the first place you
have to assume (you are assuming) that i
On 10 Jan 2014, at 02:53, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 14:22, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, I don't agree with that at all. As I've said on a number of
occasions, reality is obviously computed because it exists. What
more convincing proof could there be?
One that explains why that has
On 10 Jan 2014, at 02:22, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, I don't agree with that at all. As I've said on a number of
occasions, reality is obviously computed because it exists.
So existence implies computability? Computability theory exists
because we can distinguish existence from comput
On 10 Jan 2014, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz and Terren,
I'm thinking more about this and think I've now changed my mind on
it. After all I (my mental state etc.) do continually change from
moment to moment yet I have no doubt I'm still me. I'm not the
'same' person, but I'm still
On 10 Jan 2014, at 01:10, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
This is precisely why it is impossible to exactly clone a mind.
Then comp, in the very weak sense of the existence of a substitution
level, is false, but then the mind is infinite and reality is
infinite, contradicting your claim that
On 09 Jan 2014, at 20:20, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Terren,
Receiving a prosthetic brain is a (probably insurmountable)
technical problem. There could certainly be one functionally
equivalent to mine but it wouldn't be mine because it wouldn't have
the exact same history. If it did it would b
Edgar,
That begs the question. You start by assuming reality is computed, and then
conclude that because reality exists, reality must be computed.
Again I will point out that except for one key difference, your ideas and
Bruno's are actually pretty similar. The difference of course being that
the
On 10 January 2014 16:16, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz,
>
> So? I'm not really interested in Bruno's comp as I don't think it actually
> applies to reality. I'll stick with my computational reality for the time
> being at least...
>
> So, obviously, any logical argument that shows that computationa
Liz,
So? I'm not really interested in Bruno's comp as I don't think it actually
applies to reality. I'll stick with my computational reality for the time
being at least...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 10:05:03 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> Well, that's OK then.
>
> Now we've cleared that up
Well, that's OK then.
Now we've cleared that up, I can repeat my original point:
On 10 January 2014 15:34, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz,
>
> No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One merely needs to show it
> doesn't properly describe reality as I've just done. If you even assume a
> computa
Liz,
I don't call my theory "comp" (except in my hurried response above I
slipped and did). You do. I don't actually have a single name for the
entire theory. Just read what I actually say about it and don't assume
anything else.
My computational reality is NOT anybody else's, in fact it it's
When I talk about comp, like everyone else on this list apart from you, I
mean Bruno's theory. That's what I'm talking about here. May I respectfully
suggest you call yours something else, to avoid confusion?
On 10 January 2014 15:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz,
>
> Your comp is obviously not m
Liz,
Your comp is obviously not my comp. Don't tell me what my comp does or
doesn't do...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 9, 2014 9:38:47 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 10 January 2014 15:34, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One merely needs to show i
On 10 January 2014 15:34, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz,
>
> No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One merely needs to show it
> doesn't properly describe reality as I've just done. If you even assume a
> computational universe in the first place you have to assume (you are
> assuming) that it
Liz,
No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One merely needs to show it
doesn't properly describe reality as I've just done. If you even assume a
computational universe in the first place you have to assume (you are
assuming) that it computes reality. The fact that reality exists is
conclu
On 10 January 2014 14:22, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz,
>
> No, I don't agree with that at all. As I've said on a number of occasions,
> reality is obviously computed because it exists. What more convincing proof
> could there be?
>
One that explains why that has to be so would be a good start.
Liz,
No, I don't agree with that at all. As I've said on a number of occasions,
reality is obviously computed because it exists. What more convincing proof
could there be? If Bruno's comp claims reality is non-computable it's pure
nonsense that is conclusively falsified by the very existence of
On 10 January 2014 13:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz and Terren,
>
> I'm thinking more about this and think I've now changed my mind on it.
> After all I (my mental state etc.) do continually change from moment to
> moment yet I have no doubt I'm still me. I'm not the 'same' person, but I'm
> sti
Liz and Terren,
I'm thinking more about this and think I've now changed my mind on it.
After all I (my mental state etc.) do continually change from moment to
moment yet I have no doubt I'm still me. I'm not the 'same' person, but I'm
still me by all reasonable definitions.
Therefore assuming
Brent,
This is precisely why it is impossible to exactly clone a mind. Because you
are always trying to hit a moving target. That was included in what I meant
by saying the histories would not be the same.
Saying somebody is the 'same' person from day to day is just loose common
speech using a
On 10 January 2014 11:01, meekerdb wrote:
> On 1/9/2014 1:15 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 10 January 2014 09:20, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
>> Terren,
>>
>> I understand very well that's what the 'yes dr.' scenario is but it's
>> an impossibility to be exactly 'me' for the reasons I pointed out. You
>>
On 1/9/2014 1:15 PM, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 09:20, Edgar L. Owen mailto:edgaro...@att.net>>
wrote:
Terren,
I understand very well that's what the 'yes dr.' scenario is but it's an
impossibility to be exactly 'me' for the reasons I pointed out. You can't
come up
with a
On 10 January 2014 09:20, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Terren,
>
> I understand very well that's what the 'yes dr.' scenario is but it's an
> impossibility to be exactly 'me' for the reasons I pointed out. You can't
> come up with a hypothetical scenario which isn't actually physically
> possible and m
Edgar,
It may not be necessary to produce an exact replica of the brain. I mean
that is more or less implied by choosing a level of substitution... if
you're substituting at a relatively coarse-grained level such as neurons,
then you are betting that most of the intracellular details of a neuron a
Terren,
I understand very well that's what the 'yes dr.' scenario is but it's an
impossibility to be exactly 'me' for the reasons I pointed out. You can't
come up with a hypothetical scenario which isn't actually physically
possible and make a correct deduction about reality on that basis.
We
Edgar,
The "yes doctor" scenario is just a means of discovering whether you'd have
faith that a digital copy of yourself, in principle, would still be "you"
enough to perhaps avoid certain death. If you say yes, in principle I could
be substituted, then you are betting that comp is true.
My quest
Terren,
Receiving a prosthetic brain is a (probably insurmountable) technical
problem. There could certainly be one functionally equivalent to mine but
it wouldn't be mine because it wouldn't have the exact same history. If it
did it would be mine in the first place rather than some prosthetic
Hi Edgar,
OK, so I think you are would say "yes" to the doctor who would save you
from a life-threatening brain disorder by giving you a prosthetic brain
that replicates your biological brain at some level.
If so, Bruno's UDA proves that the physical world as we experience it is
not computable.
On 09 Jan 2014, at 18:29, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Terren,
I don't find the panpsychism label useful. Mine is an entirely new
and independent theory.
The way it works starting from the beginning:
At the fundamental level reality consists only of computationally
interacting information forms
Terren,
First, it will only detract, not help, to try to shoehorn my theories into
standard categories. It's an entirely new theory.
Yes, everything, including computers, Xperiences according to its actual
form structure. A computer with sufficient self-monitoring and other human
simulating fo
OK, that's actually pretty close to my own thinking on consciousness. FWIW
I don't see all that big of a difference between what you've articulated
regarding Xperience and what has been articulated by panpsychist
philosophy. I agree with your point about the limitations of labels, but if
they can h
Terren,
I don't find the panpsychism label useful. Mine is an entirely new and
independent theory.
The way it works starting from the beginning:
At the fundamental level reality consists only of computationally
interacting information forms made real by occurring in the reality of
being.
Eve
On his web site Max Tegmark says something like "for every 10 serious
papers I publish, I allow myself one "crazy" one" - this may be the latest
crazy one, meaning that it's highly speculative and shouldn't be expected
to synch with his other papers (crazy or otherwise).
(Or then again, this may b
On 08 Jan 2014, at 18:57, Telmo Menezes wrote:
In case you haven't seen it...
http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219
Seems like an attempt to recover materialism, which strikes me as
somewhat unexpected from Tegmark. Am I missing something?
Will take a look. It is weird indeed. Especially coming f
Edgar,
Thanks for clarifying. Your theory sounds like a spinoff of panpsychism...
would you say a rock is capable of experiencing? If not, what is the
theoretical difference between a rock and a baby that demarcates what is
capable of experiencing, and what isn't?
Terren
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 a
It seems to me Max Tegmark is assuming that consciousness is a state of
matter, and looking at what properties that matter must have. Hence he
doesn't have an explanatory theory, just an assumption. It is a materialist
assumtpion, I guess similar to Hugh Everett III's viewpoint when he
considers ob
John,
PS: BTW your statement *I "know" for sure that we don't know anything for
sure." is of course an illogical and meaningless self-contradiction. It has
no relevance to reality*
*Edgar*
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 4:45:20 PM UTC-5, JohnM wrote:
>
> Edgar wrote:
>
> *Terren,*
> *All
John,
All organisms, including babies, are conscious. Of course baby's minds do
not compute the details of reality that well initially. But the results of
those poor computations are nevertheless conscious...
The necessary distinction (elucidated by Chalmers and others as well as me)
is betwee
Eh, just looks like more information-theoretic functionalism. Explanatory
Gap? Hard Problem? States of matter make sense...solid, liquid, gas, plasma
- hungry doesn't fit in.
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 12:57:37 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> In case you haven't seen it...
>
> http://arxi
Edgar wrote:
*Terren,*
*All human babies are automatically consciousness. They are conscious of
whatever input data they have. I don't see the point of your question which
is why I didn't answer before...*
*Edgar*
I would risk the typo: *consciousless* instead of *your* (grammatical) typo
. Do yo
Terren,
All human babies are automatically consciousness. They are conscious of
whatever input data they have. I don't see the point of your question which
is why I didn't answer before...
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 2:42:24 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> On the contrary, I repli
On the contrary, I replied with a question that went unanswered.
It was a question about whether a human baby, fed a stream of virtual sense
data as in the movie The Matrix, could be considered conscious in your
theory, as you seemed to suggest that consciousness was a property of
reality, as a fu
Telmo,
Thanks for the link but see my new topic "A theory of consciousness" of a
few days ago which no one has even commented on and which is much more
reasonable and explanatory.
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 12:57:37 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> In case you haven't seen it...
On 16 Jun 2013, at 19:31, Roger Clough wrote:
Consciousness in the Materialist, Computationalist and Leibniz models
This image of a man looking out a window represents the Subject/
Object distinction.
The man represents the subject, which is subjective or inside.
Outside of the window is
erything-list
Time: 2013-01-28, 16:49:22
Subject: Re: Consciousness in TOEs
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 05:35:01PM +0100, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
> Russell,
>
> Sorry to be blunt: Energy is part of TOEs, so the tech as well as the myths
> and beliefs that frame that tech are TOE
l Standish
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-28, 16:39:25
Subject: Re: Consciousness in TOEs
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 07:30:16AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Russell Standish
>
> Perhaps you can enlighten me. Can you define "nothing" ?
Yes - I devote a whole chapter to
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:49 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 05:35:01PM +0100, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
> > Russell,
> >
> > Sorry to be blunt: Energy is part of TOEs, so the tech as well as the
> myths
> > and beliefs that frame that tech are TOE relevant, more so tha
401 - 500 of 926 matches
Mail list logo
