On Sunday, November 9, 2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','da...@davidnyman.com'); wrote:
On 8 November 2014 07:54, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Are not the relations between the subsystems part of the ontology?
Explicitly so in arithmetical realism, I would
On 9 November 2014 23:16, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
One could say that if the bill of materials includes the ingredients
and laws governing the interactions between the ingredients, that's
everything there is. If seemingly magical things, fairies and unicorns
and conscious
On 25 Oct 2014, at 20:54, David Nyman wrote:
On 21 October 2014 17:58, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Oct 2014, at 00:56, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 October 2014 17:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Oct 2014, at 15:26, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 October 2014
On 21 October 2014 17:58, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Oct 2014, at 00:56, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 October 2014 17:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Oct 2014, at 15:26, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 October 2014 02:10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
: Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)
On 18 Oct 2014, at 17:00, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Moreover, can consciousness be copied? Can we be duplicated
mentally and how well can we. If, consciousness is a substance, as
Tegmark asserts, then the pattern can be copied
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Oct 19, 2014 12:19 pm
Subject: Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)
On 18 Oct 2014, at 17:00, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Moreover, can consciousness be copied? Can we be duplicated mentally and
how well
computationalism a testable hypothesis.
Bruno
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Oct 19, 2014 12:19 pm
Subject: Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)
On 18 Oct 2014, at 17:00, spudboy100 via
On 20 Oct 2014, at 00:56, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 October 2014 17:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Oct 2014, at 15:26, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 October 2014 02:10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
Whether I find it satisfactory or not is a different
Ok, I ask too many questions from somebody from Ohio!
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Oct 19, 2014 7:04 pm
Subject: Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)
On 20 October 2014 08:14, spudboy100
On 18 October 2014 14:22, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
Weak emergence of consciousness. The emergent phenomenon is
distinguishable from the physical processes constituting it in the way
any system is distinguishable from its parts, while still being
fundamentally nothing more
On 19 October 2014 02:10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
Whether I find it satisfactory or not is a different question. The point I
was making is that people who find it satisfactory express this belief
idea by claiming that consciousness does not exist.
Assuming that you
Stathis, you wrote (among other things):
*Whether I find it satisfactory or not is a different question. The point I
was making is that people who find it satisfactory express this belief idea
by claiming that consciousness does not exist. *
IMO if not otherwise, it DOES exist in our 'minds'
...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 9:23 am
Subject: Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)
On 17 October 2014 09:40, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 16 October 2014 19:54, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote
On 19 Oct 2014, at 15:26, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 October 2014 02:10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
Whether I find it satisfactory or not is a different question. The
point I was making is that people who find it satisfactory express
this belief idea by claiming that
-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Oct 19, 2014 12:19 pm
Subject: Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)
On 18 Oct 2014, at 17:00, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Moreover, can consciousness be copied? Can we
On 19 October 2014 17:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Oct 2014, at 15:26, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 October 2014 02:10, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
Whether I find it satisfactory or not is a different question. The point I
was making is that people who
On 20 October 2014 08:14, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Very well, and now we go to the primal. I am presuming, but who wrote the
programs for computationalism, who thought the great thought, who made
Plato's ideals? We see cause and effect in nature
On 17 October 2014 09:40, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 16 October 2014 19:54, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
A necessary side-effect roughly equates to the idea of weak emergence.
Weak emergence of what, precisely? And in what way could this emergent
something
@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 9:23 am
Subject: Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)
On 17 October 2014 09:40, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 16 October 2014 19:54, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
A necessary side-effect roughly equates to the idea
On 17 October 2014 09:38, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 16 October 2014 19:54, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's a matter of semantics. I'm sure Graziano experiences what I
experience, given my use of the word experience, but due to his
understanding of
On 14 Oct 2014, at 17:21, David Nyman wrote:
On 14 October 2014 11:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
They eliminate consciousness because they grasp that it is the only
way to keep the aristotelian belief in a creation intact.
I seem to be motivated to comment at some length on
On 15 October 2014 14:38, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess he would say, as Dennett does, that zombies are impossible.
But how is the statement there is no subjective impression consistent
with the view that zombies are impossible? Surely the very definition of a
zombie is
On 15 October 2014 19:32, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If Churchland logic is applied in the case of comp, it leads to the the
idea that not only the first person is eliminated, but also all references
to the gluons, quarks, electron, bosons, fermions, waves, probability,
taxes, etc.
On Thursday, October 16, 2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','da...@davidnyman.com'); wrote:
On 15 October 2014 14:38, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess he would say, as Dennett does, that zombies are impossible.
But how is the statement
On 16 October 2014 13:31, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If consciousness is merely a side-effect of conscious-like behaviour then
zombies are impossible.
What do you mean by a side effect? Do you mean something that would
necessarily be physically incoherent (according to
On 10/16/2014 5:31 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thursday, October 16, 2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','da...@davidnyman.com'); wrote:
On 15 October 2014 14:38, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess he would say, as Dennett
On 16 Oct 2014, at 13:46, David Nyman wrote:
On 15 October 2014 19:32, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If Churchland logic is applied in the case of comp, it leads to the
the idea that not only the first person is eliminated, but also all
references to the gluons, quarks, electron,
On 10/16/2014 5:59 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 October 2014 13:31, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
mailto:stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If consciousness is merely a side-effect of conscious-like behaviour then
zombies
are impossible.
What do you mean by a side effect? Do you
On 17 Oct 2014, at 3:58 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/16/2014 5:31 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thursday, October 16, 2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 15 October 2014 14:38, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess he would say, as
On 16 Oct 2014, at 11:59 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 16 October 2014 13:31, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If consciousness is merely a side-effect of conscious-like behaviour then
zombies are impossible.
What do you mean by a side effect? Do you
On 16 October 2014 19:54, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's a matter of semantics. I'm sure Graziano experiences what I
experience, given my use of the word experience, but due to his
understanding of what underpins this experience he chooses to say it
doesn't really
On 16 October 2014 19:54, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
A necessary side-effect roughly equates to the idea of weak emergence.
Weak emergence of what, precisely? And in what way could this emergent
something be distinguishable from the physical processes constituting it?
David
On 16 October 2014 18:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/16/2014 5:59 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 October 2014 13:31, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If consciousness is merely a side-effect of conscious-like behaviour
then zombies are impossible.
What do
On Wednesday, October 15, 2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 13 October 2014 16:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','marc...@ulb.ac.be'); wrote:
That is the difference between []p and []p p. The difference is null,
extensionally, from the point of
2014-10-15 15:38 GMT+02:00 Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com:
I guess he would say, as Dennett does, that zombies are impossible.
Then he is totally inconsistent... using the term consciousness is an
illusion is an oxymoron, you have to be conscious to be deluded...
Quentin
--
On 14 Oct 2014, at 13:13, David Nyman wrote:
On 14 October 2014 11:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
It is not uncommon for believer to accept a contradiction to save
their faith, which appears to be of the type *blind*.
Yes indeed. It also puts me in mind of Sherlock Holmes's
On 14 Oct 2014, at 13:54, David Nyman wrote:
On 13 October 2014 15:43, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Well, some people might say just information processing, and that
is like using some god to *explain* everything, instead of trying to
formulate the problem.
This is doubly so in
On 14 Oct 2014, at 15:40, David Nyman wrote:
On 13 October 2014 16:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
That is the difference between []p and []p p. The difference is
null, extensionally, from the point of view or the arithmetical
truth. But the difference is huge from both the
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 14 October 2014 13:14, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh that is stupid beyond belief. The argument here is that there is no
subjective impression. WTF? Maybe this guy is the best argument we have
for
On 14 Oct 2014, at 12:32, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 14 October 2014 13:14, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh that is stupid beyond belief. The argument here is that there
is no subjective impression. WTF?
On 13 Oct 2014, at 02:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/12/2014 2:31 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 October 2014 16:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Just like I have a problem with Bruno's theory because it imputes
consciousness to information processing like DNA, the nothing but
information
On 14 October 2014 11:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
It is not uncommon for believer to accept a contradiction to save their
faith, which appears to be of the type *blind*.
Yes indeed. It also puts me in mind of Sherlock Holmes's famous dictum:
When you have eliminated the
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Oct 2014, at 12:32, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 14 October 2014 13:14, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh that is stupid beyond
On 13 October 2014 15:43, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Well, some people might say just information processing, and that is like
using some god to *explain* everything, instead of trying to formulate the
problem.
This is doubly so in the use of the term information, which is a word
On 13 October 2014 16:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
That is the difference between []p and []p p. The difference is null,
extensionally, from the point of view or the arithmetical truth. But the
difference is huge from both the body and soul points of view. Neither []p
nor []p p
On 14 October 2014 11:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
They eliminate consciousness because they grasp that it is the only way to
keep the aristotelian belief in a creation intact.
I seem to be motivated to comment at some length on this topic! It must be
because of what I've been
Ok. Have you ever given thought to a primal mind being a Boltzmann Brain?
-Original Message-
From: David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Oct 14, 2014 11:21 am
Subject: Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)
On 14
On 11 Oct 2014, at 23:05, meekerdb wrote:
Are We Really Conscious?
By MICHAEL S. A. GRAZIANO
This is the most non sensical question I can ever imagine.
The question makes sense only to conscious being.
OF the three most fundamental scientific questions about the human
condition, two
On 12 Oct 2014, at 14:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Shut up. It's all information processing. It's all information
processing. Stop thinking please
Well, some people might say just information processing, and that is
like using some god to *explain* everything, instead of trying to
On 12 Oct 2014, at 01:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sunday, October 12, 2014, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Are We Really Conscious?
By MICHAEL S. A. GRAZIANO
OF the three most fundamental scientific questions about the human
condition, two have been answered.
First, what is
On 12 Oct 2014, at 05:11, meekerdb wrote:
Just like I have a problem with Bruno's theory because it imputes
consciousness to information processing like DNA,
Please Brent, on the contrary, I insist that consciousness is NEVER
just anything 3p here.
I never imputed consciousness to an
Oh that is stupid beyond belief. The argument here is that there is no
subjective impression. WTF? Maybe this guy is the best argument we have for
philosophical zombies. I suppose he means *objectively* there is no subjective
impression, but try to parse the meaning of that assertion!
--
You
I notice he has comments disabled. I guess he must have come across the
Everything List before.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
On 14 October 2014 13:14, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh that is stupid beyond belief. The argument here is that there is no
subjective impression. WTF? Maybe this guy is the best argument we have for
philosophical zombies. I suppose he means *objectively* there is no
subjective
Shut up. It's all information processing. It's all information processing.
Stop thinking please
El 12/10/2014 05:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net escribió:
Just like I have a problem with Bruno's theory because it imputes
consciousness to information processing like DNA, the nothing but
If consciousness is an epiphenomenon then all the rest is an
epi-epiphenomenon.
On Sunday, October 12, 2014, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Are We Really Conscious?
By MICHAEL S. A. GRAZIANO
OF the three most fundamental scientific questions about the human
condition, two have been
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 2:05 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Are We Really Conscious?
By MICHAEL S. A. GRAZIANO
OF the three most fundamental scientific questions about the human
condition, two have been answered.
First, what is our relationship to the rest of the universe?
If the universe is a toroid as predicted by string theory, then the
universe has on center
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 2:05 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Are We Really Conscious?
By MICHAEL S. A. GRAZIANO
On 12 October 2014 16:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Just like I have a problem with Bruno's theory because it imputes
consciousness to information processing like DNA, the nothing but
information processing theory needs to explain what is different about my
conscious information
Not sure what this has to do with Are We Really Conscious?
(Unless this is something to do with the feeling everyone has of being at
the centre of the universe???...)
On 13 October 2014 09:49, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
If the universe is a toroid as predicted by string theory,
Le 12 oct. 2014 23:31, LizR lizj...@gmail.com a écrit :
On 12 October 2014 16:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Just like I have a problem with Bruno's theory because it imputes
consciousness to information processing like DNA, the nothing but
information processing theory needs to
On 13 October 2014 10:41, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 12 oct. 2014 23:31, LizR lizj...@gmail.com a écrit :
On 12 October 2014 16:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Just like I have a problem with Bruno's theory because it imputes
consciousness to information
On 10/12/2014 2:31 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 October 2014 16:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
Just like I have a problem with Bruno's theory because it imputes
consciousness to
information processing like DNA, the nothing but information processing
Are We Really Conscious?
By MICHAEL S. A. GRAZIANO
OF the three most fundamental scientific questions about the human condition, two have
been answered.
First, what is our relationship to the rest of the universe? Copernicus answered that one.
We're not at the center. We're a speck in a
On Sunday, October 12, 2014, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Are We Really Conscious?
By MICHAEL S. A. GRAZIANO
OF the three most fundamental scientific questions about the human
condition, two have been answered.
First, what is our relationship to the rest of the universe?
Must admit I wasn't aware of that...
:-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group,
Course this nothing but information processing view has to deal with
Bruno.
On 12 October 2014 15:46, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Must admit I wasn't aware of that...
:-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe
Just like I have a problem with Bruno's theory because it imputes consciousness to
information processing like DNA, the nothing but information processing theory needs to
explain what is different about my conscious information processing and the great majority
of my information processing
68 matches
Mail list logo
