-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 17:09:25 -0500
Thanks, Fellow Uncertain (agnostic...). Let me quote to your question
at the end the maxim from Mark's post:
I think therefore I am right! - Angelica [Rugrat]
(whatever that came from. Of course we
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 6:49 PM
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
I don't know a right position from a wrong one either, I'm only trying to
make the best guess I can given the evidence
, February 07, 2007 6:49 PM
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
I don't know a right position from a wrong one either, I'm only trying to
make the best guess I can given the evidence. Sometimes I really have no idea,
like choosing which way a tossed coin will come up. Other times I do have
evidence
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
John,
Some people, including the mentally ill, do have multiple inconsistent belief
systems, but to me that makes it clear that at least one of their beliefs must
be wrong - even in the absence of other information. You're much kinder to
alternative beliefs
-
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
John,Some people, including the mentally ill, do have multiple inconsistent
belief systems, but to me that makes it clear that at least one of their
beliefs must
(unanswerable?) mystery.
We just somehow self-generate meaning.
My introduction of the Meaning Of Life thread asked if the
Everything perspective could provide any answers to this question.
Looking at the contributions since then, it looks like the answer is
apparently not. This is what I expected
such meaning. Stathis says that meaning is an unanswered
(unanswerable?) mystery. We just somehow self-generate meaning. My
introduction of the Meaning Of Life thread asked if the
Everything perspective could provide any answers to this question. Looking
at the contributions since
computerized machine-identity (Oops, no
reference to Loeb). Duo si faciunt (cogitant?) idem, non est idem.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:38 AM
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
John Mikes wrote:
Stathis:
is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY
with a person
who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout
catholic and an excellent
biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in one mind,
he
@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
Stathis:
is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY
with a person
who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout catholic
and an excellent
biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two
?)
idem, non est idem.
John M
- Original Message -
From:
Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:38
AM
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
John,You shouldn't have one criterion for your own
beliefs and a different
Brent meeker writes:Also Stathis wrote: Sure, logic and
science are silent on the question of the value of weeds or anything
else. You need a person to come along and say let x=good, and then you
can reason logically given this. Evolutionary theory etc. may
amoebas can have such meaning. Stathis says that meaning is an unanswered
(unanswerable?) mystery. We just somehow self-generate meaning. My
introduction of the Meaning Of Life thread asked if the
Everything perspective could provide any answers to this question. Looking
at the contributions
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Sorry, I thought I was replying to what you said. It's possible of
course to be right about one thing and wrong about another, and people
do keep different beliefs differently compartmentalized in their head,
like your brother-in-law. However, this is
two possible answers to meaning. Brent reduces meaning to
something based on mere existence or survival. Thus amoebas can have such
meaning. Stathis says that meaning is an unanswered (unanswerable?) mystery.
We just somehow self-generate meaning. My introduction of the Meaning Of
Life thread
On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate
meaning.
So you say. I see no reason to believe it.
Again, I haven't just pulled this out of thin air. If you
really read the modern
On Feb 6, 11:20 pm, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate
meaning.
So you say. I see no reason to believe it.
Again, I haven't just
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate
meaning.
So you say. I see no reason to believe it.
Again, I haven't just pulled this out of thin air. If you
really read
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Feb 6, 11:20 pm, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate
meaning.
So you say. I see no reason to believe it.
Again, I haven't
or survival. Thus amoebas can have such
meaning. Stathis says that meaning is an unanswered (unanswerable?) mystery.
We just somehow self-generate meaning. My introduction of the Meaning Of
Life thread asked if the Everything perspective could provide any answers to
this question. Looking
Tom Caylor writes: Brent Meeker It does not matter now that in a
million years nothing we do now will matter. --- Thomas Nagel
We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true. Tom That is, it
isn't true that in a million years nothing we do now will matter.Why do you
say
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
Brent Meeker
It does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now
will matter.
--- Thomas Nagel
We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true.
Tom
That is, it isn't true that in a million
or survival. Thus
amoebas can have such meaning.
Stathis says that meaning is an unanswered (unanswerable?) mystery.
We just somehow self-generate meaning.
My introduction of the Meaning Of Life thread asked if the
Everything perspective could provide any answers to this question.
Looking
on mere existence or survival. Thus amoebas can have such
meaning. Stathis says that meaning is an unanswered (unanswerable?)
mystery. We just somehow self-generate meaning. My introduction of the
Meaning Of Life thread asked if the Everything perspective could provide
any answers
On 24 Jan, 11:42, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 23-janv.-07, à 15:59, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Also, nobody has proved the existence of a primitive physical
universe.
Or of a PlatoniaCall it Platonia, God, Universe, or Glass-of-Beer, we don'
t care. But
we
not implying that scientific reality is sufficient for
meaning of life. ;)
I hope so.
My above questions are perhaps a bit rhetorical in
this sense. �I think the answer is that we long to find meaning solely
through science so that we can control everything, and so we *try* to
erect
Le 26-janv.-07, à 15:13, Mark Peaty a écrit :
Bruno:
4) Mark Peaty wrote (to Brent):
As I say, the essence of evil is the act of treating other persons as
things.
I so agree with you. And then, with Church thesis (less than comp,
thus) you can understand the reason why even some
that a theory is wrong for the experiences is cheating, a little
bit like physicalist explanation of the mind which most of the time
explains it away.
By the way, I'm not implying that scientific reality is sufficient for
meaning of life. ;)
I hope so.
My above questions are perhaps a bit
Bruno:
4) Mark Peaty wrote (to Brent):
As I say, the essence of evil is the act of treating other persons
as things.
I so agree with you. And then, with Church thesis (less than comp, thus)
you can understand the reason why even some (relative) machine and some
(relative) numbers
Le 26-janv.-07, à 11:11, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
It seems to me that abstract machines have been created for our
benefit, rather like mathematical notation or human language. That is,
they allow us to think about algorithms and to consider how we might
build a physical machine to
reality is sufficient for
meaning of life. ;) My above questions are perhaps a bit rhetorical in
this sense. I think the answer is that we long to find meaning solely
through science so that we can control everything, and so we *try* to
erect science as the god over all meaning.
Tom
Hi Stathis,
Here is the follow up of my comments on your post. It seems we
completely agree. Sorry.
Le 23-janv.-07, à 06:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Simplistically, I conceive of computations as mysterious abstract
objects, like
all other mathematical objects. Physical computers
Brent Meeker writes:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
Now, when you run the UD, as far as you keep the discourse in the third
person mode, everything remains enumerable, even in the limit.
But from the first person point of view, a priori the uncountable
stories, indeed generated by the UD,
Bruno marchal writes:
Le 23-janv.-07, à 06:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Simplistically, I conceive of computations as mysterious abstract
objects, like
all other mathematical objects. Physical computers are devices which
reflect
these mathematical objects in order to achieve
Bruno,
as another chap with learned English in vertical stance I partially
agree with your 'plural' as would all English mother-tongued people, but I
also consider the gramatically probably inproper points of views, since WE
allow different 'views' in our considerations. Stathis may choose his
Le 25-janv.-07, à 12:25, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 23-janv.-07, à 06:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Searle is not a computationalist - does not believe in strong AI -
but
he does
believe in weak AI. Penrose does not believe in weak AI either.
Yes. In
Le 25-janv.-07, à 16:48, John Mikes a écrit :
Bruno,
as another chap with learned English in vertical stance I
partially agree with your 'plural' as would all English
mother-tongued people, but I also consider the gramatically probably
inproper points of views, since WE allow different
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 23-janv.-07, à 06:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Searle's theory is that consciousness is a result of actual brain
activity, not Turing emulable.
No... True: Searle's theory is that consciousness is a result
of brain
Brent Meeker writes: Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:52:01 -0800 From: [EMAIL
PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Rép : The
Meaning of Life Stathis Papaioannou wrote:Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 23-janv.-07, à 06:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Searle's
theory
Le 23-janv.-07, à 06:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Searle's theory is that consciousness is a result of actual brain
activity, not Turing emulable.
No... True: Searle's theory is that consciousness is a result
of brain activity, but nowhere does Searle pretend that brain is
-
From: 1Z
To: Everything List
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Rép : The Meaning of Life
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Also, nobody has proved the existence of a primitive physical universe.
Or of a Platonia
Le 18-janv.-07, à 06:38, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
To avoid to much posts in your mail box, I send all my comments in
this post,
Hi Brent,
1a) Brent meeker wrote (quoting Jim Heldberg) :
Atheism is not a religion, just as a vacant lot is not a type of
Bruno Marchal writes:
1c) Brent wrote (to Stathis):
How is this infinite regress avoided in our world? By
consciousness
not representing the rest of the world.
That is an interesting idea. You could elaborate a bit perhaps? I do
agree with your most of your recent replies
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 18-janv.-07, à 04:10, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
I would say relative to a theory explaining the appearances, not
just to the appearances.
Well, it is relative to appearance, but people go on to theorise that
these appearances are true reality.
Dear Bruno,
I read with joy your long and detailed 'teaching' reply (Hungarian slogan:
like a mother to her imbecil child) and understood a lot (or so I think).
I am not entusiastic about a sign-language (gesticulated or written) instead
of words, because I did not familiarize myself into its
Dear John,
Le 17-janv.-07, à 18:11, John M a écrit :
Dear Bruno,
may I ask you to spell out your B and D?
in your:
Let D = the proposition God exists, ~ = NOT, B = believes.
Where I think I cannot substitute your ~ for the =NOT - or, if
the entire line is meaning ONE idea, that B believes
Brent,
I must go, so I will just comment one line before commenting the other
paragraph (tomorrow, normally).
Le 18-janv.-07, à 06:38, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Why isn't the computer (or rock) associated with an infinity of
computations? I'm assuming you mean a potential countable infinity
[SP] The common sense view is that there is an
underlying primitive physical reality generating this appearance
Your assumption of underlying primitive physical reality puts you
in the line of believers. It is not necessary to make such assumption
to build predictive theories to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[SP] The common sense view is that there is an
underlying primitive physical reality generating this appearance
Your assumption of underlying primitive physical reality puts you
in the line of believers. It is not necessary to make such assumption
to build
Brent Meeker wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[SP] The common sense view is that there is an
underlying primitive physical reality generating this appearance
Your assumption of underlying primitive physical reality puts you
in the line of believers. It is not necessary to make such
To avoid to much posts in your mail box, I send all my comments in this
post,
Hi Brent,
1a) Brent meeker wrote (quoting Jim Heldberg) :
Atheism is not a religion, just as a vacant lot is not a type of
building, and health is not a form of sickness. Atheism is not a
religion.
--- Jim
really do not want to tease you: or mathematical - numbers based).
John
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 10:00 AM
Subject: Rép : The Meaning of Life
To avoid to much posts in your mail box, I send
Bruno Marchal wrote:
To avoid to much posts in your mail box, I send all my comments in this
post,
Hi Brent,
1a) Brent meeker wrote (quoting Jim Heldberg) :
Atheism is not a religion, just as a vacant lot is not a type of
building, and health is not a form of sickness. Atheism is
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
I make the claim that a rock can be conscious assuming that
computationalism is true; it may not be true, in which case neither
a rock nor a computer may be conscious. There is no natural
syntax or semantics for a computer telling us
Brent Meeker writes:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
I make the claim that a rock can be conscious assuming that
computationalism is true; it may not be true, in which case neither
a rock nor a computer may be conscious. There is no natural
syntax or
Brent Meeker writes:
I make the claim that a rock can be conscious assuming that
computationalism is true; it may not be true, in which case neither
a rock nor a computer may be conscious. There is no natural syntax
or semantics for a computer telling us what should count as a 1 or
.
I skip the rest of the 'rock-physics'.
Regards
John M
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
John Mikes writes
sensitivity (including
response maybe) to information (changes?) from the ambience.
(Not a Shannon-type info).
John
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:53 PM
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
Brent Meeker writes:
I make the claim that a rock can be conscious assuming that computationalism
is true; it may not be true, in which case neither a rock nor a computer may be
conscious. There is no natural syntax or semantics for a computer telling us
what should count as a 1 or a 0,
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:12:52 -0500
Stathis:
I will not go that far, nor draw 'magnificent' conclusion about conscious rocks
(I am not talking about the unconscious hysteria
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
I make the claim that a rock can be conscious assuming that
computationalism is true; it may not be true, in which case neither
a rock nor a computer may be conscious. There is no natural syntax
or semantics for a computer telling us
On 1/10/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Marchal writes:
Regarding consciousness being generated by physical activity, would it
help if
I said that if a conventional computer is conscious, then, to be
consistent, a
rock would also have to be conscious?
JM:
John Mikes writes:
Regarding consciousness being generated by physical activity, would it help if
I said that if a conventional computer is conscious, then, to be consistent, a
rock would also have to be conscious?
JM: Bruno:
A rock will not read an article in the Figaro, but that is not
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
John Mikes writes:
Regarding consciousness being generated by physical activity, would it help
if
I said that if a conventional computer is conscious, then, to be consistent,
a
rock would also have to be conscious?
JM: Bruno:
A rock will not read an
Stathis,
I will ask you to be patient until next wednesday because I am busy
right now. I think we agree on many things, and this is an opportunity
to search where exactly we diverge, if we diverge.
For example I disagree with the expression brain are conscious, but I
am read you more
, January 07, 2007 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
John,
My email pgm sometimes (as now) balks at quote/copying
material from emails I'm replying to. So I'll do as best
to reply without having your exact words to refer to.
re Bruno's inquiring about how I link changes
Bruno Marchal writes:
I will ask you to be patient until next wednesday because I am busy
right now. I think we agree on many things, and this is an opportunity
to search where exactly we diverge, if we diverge.
For example I disagree with the expression brain are conscious, but I
am
Mark Peaty writes:
SP: 'Is there anything about how you are feeling to day that makes you sure
that aliens didn't come during the night and replace your body with an exact
copy? Because that is basically what happens naturally anyway, although it
isn't aliens and it takes months rather
Le 07-janv.-07, à 19:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
And does it even have to be very good? Suppose it made a sloppy copy
of me that left out 90% of my memories - would it still be me? How
much fidelity is required for Bruno's argument? I think not much.
The argument does not depend at all
Hi James,
Le 08-janv.-07, à 02:04, James N Rose a écrit :
Bruno,
Please be patient for my reply to your question.
I'll compose an answer soon on inertia and change
of inertia and how I reached the notion of
assigning that as the essential-primitive of
Consciousness.
Take your time. I am
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 07-janv.-07, à 19:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
And does it even have to be very good? Suppose it made a sloppy copy
of me that left out 90% of my memories - would it still be me? How
much fidelity is required for Bruno's argument? I think not much.
The
Le 08-janv.-07, à 14:27, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 07-janv.-07, à 19:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
And does it even have to be very good? Suppose it made a sloppy
copy of me that left out 90% of my memories - would it still be
me? How much fidelity is
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 07-janv.-07, à 19:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
And does it even have to be very good? Suppose it made a sloppy
copy of me that left out 90% of my memories - would it still be
me? How much fidelity is required for Bruno's argument? I think
not much.
The
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 07-janv.-07, à 19:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
And does it even have to be very good? Suppose it made a sloppy copy
of me that left out 90% of my memories - would it still be me? How
much fidelity is required for Bruno's argument? I think not much.
The argument
John Mikes writes:
Friends:
Siding with Mark (almost?G)
just to a 'wider' view of mentality than implied by
physicalistic - physiologistic - even maybe
comp-related frameworks, indicating the domains we did
not even discovered, but love to disregard. Upon Marks
post
--- Stathis Papaioannou
Mark Peaty writes:
SP: 'Getting back to the original question about teleportation experiments, are
you saying that it would be impossible, or just technically very difficult to
preserve personal identity whilst undergoing such a process? As Brent pointed
out, technical difficulty is not an
Brent: 'But *your* infinity is just *really big*. There are only a
finite number of atoms in a person and they have only a finite number of
relations. So how can an exact copy require infinite resources? '
MP: Well yes, perhaps there are only a finite number of relationships,
but these
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Mark Peaty writes:
SP: 'Getting back to the original question about teleportation
experiments, are you saying that it would be impossible, or just
technically very difficult to preserve personal identity whilst
undergoing such a process? As Brent pointed out,
SP: 'The brain manages to maintain identity from moment to moment
without perfect copying or infinite computing power... '
MP: True, up to a point, but I want to quibble about that later [maybe
below, maybe in another posting]. And upon more, [and more, and more,]
mature reflection I can see
Hi, I'm new to this list. Sorry for coming into the conversation
uninvited, but I would like to post some comments on this :) Hope you
don't mind.
Brent Meeker wrote:
And does it even have to be very good? Suppose it made a sloppy copy
of me that left out 90% of my memories - would it still
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
(MP)... because infinity is infinity.
But *your* infinity is just *really big*. There are only a finite number of
atoms
appreciate the excerpt from your preceding post copied below your
post.
Have a good day, my friend
John
- Original Message -
From: James N Rose
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
John,
You made
João Silva writes:
Hi, I'm new to this list. Sorry for coming into the conversation
uninvited, but I would like to post some comments on this :) Hope you
don't mind.
Welcome to the list. Everyone is free to barge into every discussion.
Brent Meeker wrote:
And does it even have to be
Mark Peaty writes (in part):
So back to the question: can I be copied? Answer: More or less yes.
Next question: Is the edition of me that gets copied then flushed away
committing suicide? Answer: Yes
Next question: If the copying did not destroy the original of me then who is
the new
Bruno,
Please be patient for my reply to your question.
I'll compose an answer soon on inertia and change
of inertia and how I reached the notion of
assigning that as the essential-primitive of
Consciousness.
James
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this
João Silva wrote:
Hi, I'm new to this list. Sorry for coming into the conversation
uninvited, but I would like to post some comments on this :) Hope you
don't mind.
Brent Meeker wrote:
And does it even have to be very good? Suppose it made a sloppy copy
of me that left out 90% of my
SP: 'Is there anything about how you are feeling to day that makes you
sure that aliens didn't come during the night and replace your body with
an exact copy? Because that is basically what happens naturally anyway,
although it isn't aliens and it takes months rather than overnight:
almost
John,
My email pgm sometimes (as now) balks at quote/copying
material from emails I'm replying to. So I'll do as best
to reply without having your exact words to refer to.
re Bruno's inquiring about how I link changes of inertia
to Csness, I'll do that in a few days.
re Gendankens - I
Friends:
Siding with Mark (almost?G)
just to a 'wider' view of mentality than implied by
physicalistic - physiologistic - even maybe
comp-related frameworks, indicating the domains we did
not even discovered, but love to disregard. Upon Marks
post
--- Stathis Papaioannou (wroteamong more):
SP: 'Getting back to the original question about teleportation
experiments, are you saying that it would be impossible, or just
technically very difficult to preserve personal identity whilst
undergoing such a process? As Brent pointed out, technical difficulty is
not an issue in thought
Mark Peaty wrote:
SP: 'Getting back to the original question about teleportation
experiments, are you saying that it would be impossible, or just
technically very difficult to preserve personal identity whilst
undergoing such a process? As Brent pointed out, technical difficulty is
not an
John,
You made excellent points, which I'm happy to
reply to ..
John M wrote:
--- James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
JR:
...
Make it easier -- a coma patient, inert for decades,
re-wakes alone in
a room, registers its situation and in an instant -
dies. Would that
moment qualify
Le 05-janv.-07, à 05:55, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno: If consciousness supervenes on all physical processes a case
can be made that matter could be relevant for consciousness. (I see
Peter Jones makes a similar remark).
Stathis: Except that you could say the same for the Maudlin
Le 04-janv.-07, à 16:37, James N Rose a écrit :
It is -not- complex or human consciousness -- which emerges later.
But it is the primal foundation-presence and qualia on which
emerged forms of consciousness rely - in order for those complex forms
to exist, as they do.
I agree. (if I
Le 04-janv.-07, à 22:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
I am not sure what Hans Moravec's physical mechanism would be for
the 'teddy bear' example of panpsychism? I have read Mind Children and
Robot thoroughly, am cluless, regarding why Moravec should agree with
Spinoza.
Me too.
Bruno
Brent: 'However, all that is needed for the arguments that appear on
this list is to recreate a rough, functioning copy of the body plus a
detailed reproduction of memory and a brain that functioned
approximately the same. That much might not be too hard. After all, as
Stathis points out,
Mark Peaty wrote:
Brent: 'However, all that is needed for the arguments that appear on
this list is to recreate a rough, functioning copy of the body plus a
detailed reproduction of memory and a brain that functioned
approximately the same. That much might not be too hard. After all, as
Bruno Marchal writes:
Bruno: If consciousness supervenes on all physical processes a case
can be made that matter could be relevant for consciousness. (I see
Peter Jones makes a similar remark).
Stathis: Except that you could say the same for the Maudlin example,
in which it is
Mark Peaty writes:
Brent: 'However, all that is needed for the arguments that appear on this list
is to recreate a rough, functioning copy of the body plus a detailed
reproduction of memory and a brain that functioned approximately the same.
That much might not be too hard. After all, as
Thanks for this Peter: I am still chewing on this, with a view to
ultimate digestion.
I do get a certain kind of Angels and pinheads impression about some of
it though. Hopefully that is just an illusion! :-)
Regards
Mark Peaty CDES
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
101 - 200 of 246 matches
Mail list logo
