On 24 Oct 2014, at 19:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/24/2014 9:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Jesse,
Sorry for replying late.
On 27 Jul 2014, at 18:27, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:46 AM, David Nyman
da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 23 July 2014 17:49, Jesse Mazer
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:53:08PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/24/2014 6:53 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:35:36AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
So are you simply assuming there is a winner, i.e. that the
relevant statistics exist in the limit? Even if they do, it's not
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Had some trouble following your post (in part because I don't know all
the acronyms),
It's very simple, just look them up on Google or Wikipedia:
Comp = give something away for free
UDA = Universal Dance Association
Hi Jesse,
Sorry for replying late.
On 27 Jul 2014, at 18:27, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:46 AM, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com
wrote:
On 23 July 2014 17:49, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
So, why not adopt a Tegmark-like view where a physical universe is
On 10/24/2014 9:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Jesse,
Sorry for replying late.
On 27 Jul 2014, at 18:27, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:46 AM, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com
mailto:da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 23 July 2014 17:49, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:35:36AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
So are you simply assuming there is a winner, i.e. that the
relevant statistics exist in the limit? Even if they do, it's not
clear that they exist for our experience which is not in the
limit. It seems that you are assuming
On 10/24/2014 6:53 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:35:36AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
So are you simply assuming there is a winner, i.e. that the
relevant statistics exist in the limit? Even if they do, it's not
clear that they exist for our experience which is not in the
On 30 Jul 2014, at 16:16, David Nyman wrote:
On 29 July 2014 18:41, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
It is thought as a reductio ad absurdum. If consciousness supervenes
on the physical activity, then it supervenes on the movie, But there
is no computation in the movie, only a
On 31 Jul 2014, at 05:21, Kim Jones wrote:
On 31 Jul 2014, at 8:47 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
CTM = Comp (to use with moderation when tired of the sound of comp).
Well, it's actuallyC omputationalist Theory (of)
M ind.
That's absolutely correct.
On 29 July 2014 18:41, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
It is thought as a reductio ad absurdum. If consciousness supervenes on the
physical activity, then it supervenes on the movie, But there is no
computation in the movie, only a description of a computation, so
consciousness does not
On 27 Jul 2014, at 19:46, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:13 PM, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com
wrote:
On 27 July 2014 17:27, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see why that should follow at all, as long as there are
multiple
infinite computations running
On 31 Jul 2014, at 8:47 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
CTM = Comp (to use with moderation when tired of the sound of comp).
Well, it's actuallyC omputationalist Theory (of) M ind.
Cheers,
Kim
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
David, I continue to comment the post.
On 27 Jul 2014, at 15:56, David Nyman wrote:
snip (already commented)
But we haven't yet reached that point in the argument. One can still
set one's face against the reversal at Step 7, on the basis (however
contingent) that the implications of UD* in a
Sorry for the comment delay, Jesse, (also, I sent this yesterday, but
it seems not having go through).
On 25 Jul 2014, at 23:22, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
HI Jesse, David,
On 23 Jul 2014, at 18:49, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On 27 July 2014 19:38, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Again I am asking about the logic that explains *why* we should abandon the
notion of a primitive universal computation given that we agree with
steps 1-6. I thought when you said the UD would dominate, you were trying
to give an
On 27 Jul 2014, at 15:56, David Nyman wrote:
Yes, that is still assumed at Step 7. But it's interesting that
Bostrom gets quite close to some of the implications of UD*.
I don't think there is any coincidence here. Bostrom mentioned the UDA
and the FPI in his talk at the ASSC 2004, but
Sorry for the comment delay, Jesse,
On 25 Jul 2014, at 23:22, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
HI Jesse, David,
On 23 Jul 2014, at 18:49, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Had some trouble following your post (in part because I don't know
On 27 Jul 2014, at 15:56, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 July 2014 14:50, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
As I try to see if we disagree, or if it is just a problem of
vocabulary, I
will make comment which might, or not be like I am nitpicking, and
that
*might* be the case, and then I
On 24 July 2014 14:50, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
As I try to see if we disagree, or if it is just a problem of vocabulary, I
will make comment which might, or not be like I am nitpicking, and that
*might* be the case, and then I apologize.
No worries. I think some of it is just
On 23 July 2014 17:49, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
So, why not adopt a Tegmark-like view where a physical universe is
*nothing more* than a particular abstract computation, and that can give us
a well-defined notion of which sub-computations are performed within it by
various
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:46 AM, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 23 July 2014 17:49, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
So, why not adopt a Tegmark-like view where a physical universe is
*nothing more* than a particular abstract computation, and that can give
us
a
On 27 July 2014 17:27, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see why that should follow at all, as long as there are multiple
infinite computations running rather than the UDA being the only one,
I may be missing some other point you're making, but I think this is
already dealt with
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 1:13 PM, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 27 July 2014 17:27, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see why that should follow at all, as long as there are multiple
infinite computations running rather than the UDA being the only one,
I may be
On 27 July 2014 18:46, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
But when you say by this point in the argument, do you mean there was
some
earlier step that established some good *reasons* for why we should abandon
the notion of a primitively-physical universe (or primitive universal
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:04 PM, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 27 July 2014 18:46, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
But when you say by this point in the argument, do you mean there was
some
earlier step that established some good *reasons* for why we should
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
HI Jesse, David,
On 23 Jul 2014, at 18:49, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Had some trouble following your post (in part because I don't know all the
acronyms), but are you talking about the basic problem of deciding which
David,
As I try to see if we disagree, or if it is just a problem of
vocabulary, I will make comment which might, or not be like I am
nitpicking, and that *might* be the case, and then I apologize.
On 23 Jul 2014, at 15:38, David Nyman wrote:
Recent discussions, mainly with Brent and
HI Jesse, David,
On 23 Jul 2014, at 18:49, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Had some trouble following your post (in part because I don't know
all the acronyms), but are you talking about the basic problem of
deciding which computations a particular physical process can be
said to implement or
Recent discussions, mainly with Brent and Bruno, have really got me
thinking again about the issues raised by CTM and the UDA. I'll try to
summarise some of my thoughts in this post. The first thing to say, I
think, is that the assumption of CTM is equivalent to accepting the
existence of an
Had some trouble following your post (in part because I don't know all the
acronyms), but are you talking about the basic problem of deciding which
computations a particular physical process can be said to implement or
instantiate? If so, see my post at
30 matches
Mail list logo
