On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The question is, in Helsinki, where do you expect to feel to be after
pushing the button. I have repeat this many times.
Yes,
Bruno Marchal
certainly has repeated this question many many times,
On 24 Jun 2015, at 19:25, John Clark wrote:
Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The question is, in Helsinki, where do you expect to feel to
be after pushing the button. I have repeat this many times.
Yes, Bruno Marchal certainly has repeated this question many
many times, and
On 23 Jun 2015, at 02:02, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
the question, contrary to what you say has been given precisely.
We ask to the 1-you, about
If you has been duplicated there is nothing 1 about it,
There is 1 about all of them.
Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The question is, in Helsinki, where do you expect to feel to be after
pushing the button. I have repeat this many times.
Yes,
Bruno Marchal
certainly has repeated this question many many times, and after each and
every time
John Clark has
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
the question, contrary to what you say has been given precisely. We ask
to the 1-you, about
If you has been duplicated there is nothing 1 about it, there is no
such thing as THE 1-you. And who is Bruno Marchal going to ask, the guy
On 21 Jun 2015, at 20:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/21/2015 8:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jun 2015, at 23:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/19/2015 10:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jun 2015, at 02:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2015 4:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2015
On 22 Jun 2015, at 01:50, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If Bruno Marchal abandoned personal pronouns then Bruno Marchal
would be FORCED to keep those 1-3 person view distinction straight
all along the thought experience,
That does not
On 20 Jun 2015, at 01:26, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Bruno Marchal got the feeling that John Clark develops an allergy
to pronouns. From Bruno Marchal's long time experience, the roots of
the allergy is guessed to come from the
On 19 Jun 2015, at 23:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/19/2015 10:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jun 2015, at 02:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2015 4:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2015 1:10 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM, meekerdb
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If Bruno Marchal abandoned personal pronouns then Bruno Marchal would be
FORCED to keep those 1-3 person view distinction straight all along the
thought experience,
That does not follow.
So even then Bruno Marchal would not be
On 6/21/2015 8:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jun 2015, at 23:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/19/2015 10:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jun 2015, at 02:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2015 4:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2015 1:10 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18,
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Bruno Marchal got the feeling that John Clark develops an allergy to
pronouns. From Bruno Marchal's long time experience, the roots of the
allergy is guessed to come from the inability to keep the 1-3 person view
distinction all
On 6/19/2015 10:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jun 2015, at 02:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2015 4:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2015 1:10 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
This is gitting muddled. '2+2=4' is
On 18 Jun 2015, at 19:07, John Clark wrote:
Before responding to Bruno Marchal's post John Clark would like to
say that it's amazing how much sloppy thinking and elementary
logical errors can be swept under the rug by the simplest shortest
words like you and I;
Promising introduction.
On 18 Jun 2015, at 22:45, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno wrote:
Do you assume a physical reality, or are you agnostic on this
question?
I do believe in a natural or physical reality, but I am agnostic if
it needs to be assume and thus involved primitive element, or if
what we take as a
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 4:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
An equation is just a sentence.
Yes, and in the sentence 2+2=4 let's list what the symbols mean:
The symbol 2 means the successor of 1.
The symbol + means and
The symbol = means is.
The symbol 4 means the successor of 3
On 19 Jun 2015, at 02:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2015 4:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2015 1:10 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
This is gitting muddled. '2+2=4' is a tautology if the
symbols
are given
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
'2+2=4' is a tautology by virtue of the meanings of the terms involved.
Yes, and E=MC^2 is a tautology too as is every correct mathematical
equation. For this reason 2+2=5 is NOT a tautology.
John K Clark
--
You received
Before responding to Bruno Marchal's post John Clark would like to say
that it's amazing how much sloppy thinking and elementary logical errors
can be swept under the rug by the simplest shortest words like you and
I; therefore John Clark requests that when Bruno Marchal rebuts this
post Bruno
On 6/18/2015 4:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2015 1:10 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
This is gitting muddled. '2+2=4' is a tautology if the symbols
are given their meaning by Peano's axioms or similar axiom
On 6/18/2015 10:07 AM, John Clark wrote:
If in Helsinki you predict I will see both W and M, BOTH reconstituted
persons
will have to write I was wrong: I definitely see only one city.
If the word I is just an abbreviation for Bruno Marchal in the above then the
replacement could
On 6/18/2015 8:35 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
'2+2=4' is a tautology by virtue of the meanings of the terms involved.
Yes, and E=MC^2 is a tautology too as is every correct mathematical
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This is gitting muddled. '2+2=4' is a tautology if the symbols are
given their meaning by Peano's axioms or similar axiom set and rules of
inference. If the symbols are interpreted as the size of specific physical
sets,
On 6/18/2015 1:10 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This is gitting muddled. '2+2=4' is a tautology if the symbols are given
their
meaning by Peano's axioms or similar axiom set and rules of
Bruno wrote:
Do you assume a physical reality, or are you agnostic on this question?
I do believe in a natural or physical reality, but I am agnostic if it
needs to be assume and thus involved primitive element, or if what we take
as a physical universe is a (collective) experience of numbers
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2015 1:10 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
This is gitting muddled. '2+2=4' is a tautology if the symbols
are given their meaning by Peano's axioms or similar axiom set and
rules of inference. If the
On 17 Jun 2015, at 22:11, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno: to describe what OTHERS did does not mean (in my vocabulary)
that I KNOW (agree?) the same domain as it was handled. I 'know' (or
may know) the efforts to derive science by human scientists.
Does NATURE have regularities indeed? or our
On 17 Jun 2015, at 18:26, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thursday, June 18, 2015, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
You are the person reading this sentence
OK, but then it would be meaningless to talk about what you
On 18 Jun 2015, at 01:39, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Jun 2015, at 03:29, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 12 June 2015 at 17:40, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Arithmetic is, after all, only an axiomatic system. We can
On 17 Jun 2015, at 17:56, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
You are the person reading this sentence
OK, but then it would be meaningless to talk about what you
will do tomorrow because you will not be reading that sentence
tomorrow.
On 17 Jun 2015, at 18:14, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
We're talking about multiple (probably infinite) copying and
branching, so who the hell is you?
All of them are you,
I agree, and so the conclusion is logically inescapable, you
Bruno: to describe what OTHERS did does not mean (in my vocabulary)
that I KNOW (agree?) the same domain as it was handled. I 'know' (or
may know) the efforts to derive science by human scientists.
Does NATURE have regularities indeed? or our scientific observation
assigns returning facets and
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Jun 2015, at 03:29, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 12 June 2015 at 17:40, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au Arithmetic is, after all, only
an axiomatic system. We can make up
an indefinite number of axiomatic
On 16 Jun 2015, at 18:26, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
The many worlds as an ensemble are determinate, but which world
you will end up in is not.
Forget you, which world ANYTHING ends up in is not deterministic.
To be
On 15 Jun 2015, at 21:53, John Mikes wrote:
Brent concluded ingeniously:
They have a theory for why THIS might be so no matter what THIS is.
You just have to find the right mathematics to describe it and
miracle of miracles the mathematics is obeyed!
Brent
May I step a bit further: by
On Thursday, June 18, 2015, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','stath...@gmail.com'); wrote:
You are the person reading this sentence
OK, but then it would be meaningless to talk about what you
On 13 Jun 2015, at 03:29, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 12 June 2015 at 17:40, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au Arithmetic is, after all, only an
axiomatic system. We can make up
an indefinite number of axiomatic systems whose theorems are every
bit as 'independent
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
You are the person reading this sentence
OK, but then it would be meaningless to talk about what you will do
tomorrow because you will not be reading that sentence tomorrow. So if
Stathis Papaioannou wants to talk about
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
We're talking about multiple (probably infinite) copying and branching,
so who the hell is you?
All of them are you,
I agree, and so the conclusion is logically inescapable, you will see
Moscow AND Washington.
but all of
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
The many worlds as an ensemble are determinate, but which world you will
end up in is not.
Forget you, which world ANYTHING ends up in is not deterministic. To be
deterministic branch X and everything in it, conscious or not,
On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','stath...@gmail.com'); wrote:
The many worlds as an ensemble are determinate, but which world you will
end up in is not.
Forget
On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','stath...@gmail.com'); wrote:
We're talking about multiple (probably infinite) copying and branching,
so who the hell is you?
You
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
We're talking about multiple (probably infinite) copying and branching,
so who the hell is you?
You are the person reading this sentence
OK, but then it would be meaningless to talk about what you will do
tomorrow because
On 16 June 2015 at 12:17, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
The Schroedinger equation is perfectly computable.
Yes but that fact does us no good because Schrodinger's Wave Equation
doesn't describe anything
On 15 Jun 2015, at 05:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2015 at 14:19, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
It is plausible that regularities are a required feature of
conscious existence
This seems very likely, but it does assume
On 15 Jun 2015, at 02:40, John Clark wrote:
On 6/13/2015 LizR wrote:
None of this explain why it works so well
Mathematics is a language that can always describe regularities and
it can do so more tersely than any other language; and if the laws
of physics didn't have regularities
On 14 Jun 2015, at 21:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/14/2015 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Arithmetic is full of life, ... and taxes and death.
But it needs interpretation to be full of death and taxes.
Otherwise it is just abstract relations.
Yes. But the one doing the interpretation are
Brent concluded ingeniously:
*They have a theory for why THIS might be so no matter what THIS is. You
just have to find the right mathematics to describe it and miracle of
miracles the mathematics is obeyed!Brent*
May I step a bit further: by careful observations humanity (or some
'higher'
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
The Schroedinger equation is perfectly computable.
Yes but that fact does us no good because Schrodinger's Wave Equation
doesn't describe anything observable, to get that you must square the
amplitude of the equation at a
On 6/14/2015 8:08 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2015 at 14:19, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
It is plausible that regularities are a required feature of
conscious existence
This seems very likely, but it does assume
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/14/2015 8:08 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2015 at 14:19, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
It is plausible that regularities are a required feature of
conscious existence
This seems very likely, but it
On 6/15/2015 12:40 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/14/2015 8:08 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2015 at 14:19, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
It is plausible that regularities are a required feature of
On 6/14/2015 2:49 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2015 at 08:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
I'm not saying it's ineffective. I'm saying it's not a mystery why it's
effective.
Because the universe appears to operate on principles that map very well onto
On 13 Jun 2015, at 06:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2015 6:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 12 June 2015 at 17:40, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Arithmetic is, after all, only an axiomatic system. We can
make up
an indefinite number of axiomatic systems whose
On 13 Jun 2015, at 06:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2015 6:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 12 June 2015 at 17:40, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Arithmetic is, after all, only an axiomatic system. We can
make up
an indefinite number of
On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 9:52:05 PM UTC-7, Bruce wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2015 6:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 12 June 2015 at 17:40, Bruce Kellett bhke...@optusnet.com.au
javascript:
Arithmetic is, after all, only an axiomatic system. We can make up
On 6/14/2015 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Arithmetic is full of life, ... and taxes and death.
But it needs interpretation to be full of death and taxes. Otherwise it is just abstract
relations. That's exactly why it is so useful; the same relations hold under many
different
On 6/14/2015 12:45 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 June 2015 at 16:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 6/13/2015 9:18 PM, LizR wrote:
None of this explain why it works so well anyway.
I don't understand why the effectiveness of mathematics is
On 14 June 2015 at 16:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/13/2015 9:18 PM, LizR wrote:
None of this explain why it works so well anyway.
I don't understand why the effectiveness of mathematics is considered
problematic. First, we, creatures who evolved in this world, invented it
My apologies. You also say something that boils down to THIS is how we
discovered maths in the first place (abstracted from objects etc) ...
THEREFORE we invented it.
On which basis we invented gravity etc.
What we invent is a description. (Of gravity, maths, etc.) That doesn't
mean our
On 15 June 2015 at 08:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'm not saying it's ineffective. I'm saying it's not a mystery why it's
effective.
Because the universe appears to operate on principles that map very well
onto some parts of maths, and may even map exactly (we have no reason to
On 15 June 2015 at 11:13, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:49:40AM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2015 at 10:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
To summarise, there appears to be two quite distinct questions here:
a) Given there
On 6/13/2015 LizR wrote:
None of this explain why it works so well
Mathematics is a language that can always describe regularities and it can
do so more tersely than any other language; and if the laws of physics
didn't have regularities they wouldn't be laws. But a language does not
create
LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2015 at 10:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
To summarise, there appears to be two quite distinct questions here:
a) Given there are regularities in Nature, why is our mathematics so
effective. As Brent says, this
To summarise, there appears to be two quite distinct questions here:
a) Given there are regularities in Nature, why is our mathematics so
effective. As Brent says, this is not surprising - evolution would see
to it that we would choose a mathematical system out of the many
possible that would be
On 15 June 2015 at 10:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
To summarise, there appears to be two quite distinct questions here:
a) Given there are regularities in Nature, why is our mathematics so
effective. As Brent says, this is not surprising - evolution would see
to it that
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:49:40AM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2015 at 10:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
To summarise, there appears to be two quite distinct questions here:
a) Given there are regularities in Nature, why is our mathematics so
effective. As Brent
On 15 June 2015 at 14:19, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
It is plausible that regularities are a required feature of
conscious existence
This seems very likely, but it does assume something like a string
landscape in which some regions don't contain regularities. Or to put it
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:35:47AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2015 at 10:41, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
To summarise, there appears to be two quite distinct questions here:
a) Given there are regularities in
On 15 June 2015 at 12:40, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/13/2015 LizR wrote:
None of this explain why it works so well
Mathematics is a language
it is? Are you saying that
(a) there exists, out there, a language called maths which just happens to
be great for describing
LizR wrote:
On 15 June 2015 at 14:19, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
It is plausible that regularities are a required feature of
conscious existence
This seems very likely, but it does assume something like a string
landscape in which some
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Jun 14, 2015 3:48 pm
Subject: Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal
On 6/14/2015 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Arithmetic is full of life, ... and taxes and death.
But it needs interpretation to be full
On 6/13/2015 9:18 PM, LizR wrote:
None of this explain why it works so well anyway.
I don't understand why the effectiveness of mathematics is considered problematic. First,
we, creatures who evolved in this world, invented it to be useful. We invented counting
and arithmetic to be used in
None of this explain why it works so well anyway.
On 14 June 2015 at 07:42, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Brent concluded:
*2+2=4. Then we discovered that these rules implied a lot of things we
hadn't thought of. But they aren't out there, they're in our language.*
This is 'MY'
Brent concluded:
*2+2=4. Then we discovered that these rules implied a lot of things we
hadn't thought of. But they aren't out there, they're in our language.*
This is 'MY' agnosticism talking: why do you think all the novelties are in
our language, not out there? Our mind (whatever it may
Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 03:40:48PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
This is a false distinction. Arithmetical 'truth' is no more
fundamental or final than physical truth. Arithmetic is, after all,
only an axiomatic system. We can make up an indefinite number of
axiomatic
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 03:40:48PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
This is a false distinction. Arithmetical 'truth' is no more
fundamental or final than physical truth. Arithmetic is, after all,
only an axiomatic system. We can make up an indefinite number of
axiomatic systems whose theorems
On 6/12/2015 6:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 12 June 2015 at 17:40, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Arithmetic is, after all, only an axiomatic system. We can make up
an indefinite number of axiomatic systems whose theorems are every
bit as 'independent of us'
meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2015 6:29 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 12 June 2015 at 17:40, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Arithmetic is, after all, only an axiomatic system. We can make up
an indefinite number of axiomatic systems whose theorems are every
bit as
LizR wrote:
On 12 June 2015 at 17:40, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
Arithmetic is, after all, only an axiomatic system. We can make up
an indefinite number of axiomatic systems whose theorems are every
bit as 'independent of us' as those of arithmetic. Are these also to
On 12 June 2015 at 17:40, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
LizR wrote:
You also say that 1p phenomena - in a physical theory - have to be
eliminated (as per Dennett) or elevated to something we could call
supernatural (for the sake of argument - in any case, something not
On 11 Jun 2015, at 20:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/11/2015 6:58 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Recent discussions on the purported 'reversal' of the relation
between 'machine psychology' and physics seem to be running, as
ever, into the sand over disagreements on the meaning and
significance of
On 12 Jun 2015, at 08:13, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 03:40:48PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
This is a false distinction. Arithmetical 'truth' is no more
fundamental or final than physical truth. Arithmetic is, after all,
only an axiomatic system. We can make up an
On 12 Jun 2015, at 07:40, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
You also say that 1p phenomena - in a physical theory - have to be
eliminated (as per Dennett) or elevated to something we could call
supernatural (for the sake of argument - in any case, something
not covered by the underlying
On 12 Jun 2015, at 07:24, Bruce Kellett wrote:
David Nyman wrote:
Recent discussions on the purported 'reversal' of the relation
between 'machine psychology' and physics seem to be running, as
ever, into the sand over disagreements on the meaning and
significance of rather complex
On 6/11/2015 6:58 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Recent discussions on the purported 'reversal' of the relation between 'machine
psychology' and physics seem to be running, as ever, into the sand over disagreements on
the meaning and significance of rather complex arguments like the MGA. I'd like to
Recent discussions on the purported 'reversal' of the relation between
'machine psychology' and physics seem to be running, as ever, into the sand
over disagreements on the meaning and significance of rather complex
arguments like the MGA. I'd like to try another tack.
The computational theory of
Nice summary, though I'm not sure how it's (somewhat) different. Maybe I
just missed the point. It looks like it's akin to Maudlin - along the lines
of I can explain *your* conscious behaviour using a theory that boils down
to what atoms do, but I can't explain *my* subjective experiences that
David Nyman wrote:
Recent discussions on the purported 'reversal' of the relation between
'machine psychology' and physics seem to be running, as ever, into the
sand over disagreements on the meaning and significance of rather
complex arguments like the MGA. I'd like to try another tack.
It
LizR wrote:
You also say that 1p phenomena - in a physical theory - have to be
eliminated (as per Dennett) or elevated to something we could call
supernatural (for the sake of argument - in any case, something not
covered by the underlying physics). But the alternative is apparently
that
90 matches
Mail list logo
