On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
What does the popularity of porn and gossip have to do with the capacity
of computers to think and feel?
I have no idea, but that's one of the best Zen Koans I've ever heard.
There is no other logical conclusion to make given
On Saturday, March 16, 2013 1:42:29 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
What does the popularity of porn and gossip have to do with the
capacity of computers to think and feel?
I have no idea, but that's one of the best
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 11:38:10 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
There is no other logical conclusion to make given the FACT that if
your brain chemistry changes your emotions change, AND if your
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Your view is that emotion must be local to the brain
There is no other logical conclusion to make given the FACT that if your
brain chemistry changes your emotions change, AND if your emotions change
your brain chemistry
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:14:00 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
Your view is that emotion must be local to the brain
There is no other logical conclusion to make given the FACT that if your
brain chemistry
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no evidence to support the locality of emotional experience to
neurochemistry,
Change the brain chemistry and emotions ALWAYS change, change the emotions
and the brain chemistry ALWAYS changes; evidence just doesn't
On Monday, March 11, 2013 1:52:54 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
There is no evidence to support the locality of emotional experience to
neurochemistry,
Change the brain chemistry and emotions ALWAYS change,
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
What I am saying though is that even a perfect correlation does not mean
direct causation. Everyone has a brain and a heart, but that doesn't mean
the brain causes the heart.
Up to now whenever we observe a fully functioning
On Sunday, March 10, 2013 11:57:16 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
What I am saying though is that even a perfect correlation does not mean
direct causation. Everyone has a brain and a heart, but that doesn't mean
the
On Saturday, March 9, 2013 1:01:50 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 , Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
who would vow never to change their views?
The religious faithful.
I'm not sure I would say that is their view, so much as the view of an
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 , Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
who would vow never to change their views?
The religious faithful.
By simple logic the answer has to be yes if the following conditions are
met. If whenever a traffic jam happens the sun goes down and whenever the
sun goes
On 3/9/2013 1:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 , Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
who would vow never to change their views?
The religious faithful.
Dear John,
Could you consider the possibility that the religiously faithful
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Stephen Hawking can look at someone doing it and eventually figure it
out, and then instruct me to do exactly what he says and unclog the toilet.
The sad, very sad, fact is that without computers Stephen Hawking couldn't
On 3/9/2013 1:12 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Stephen Hawking can look at someone doing it and eventually
figure it out, and then instruct me to do exactly what he says and
unclog the toilet.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
but back in the days of my awesome Atari 800 computer, there was a
program called S.A.M. which sounded like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nqixe3WrQ
Now, 31 years later, we have this:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 12:12:31 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
but back in the days of my awesome Atari 800 computer, there was a
program called S.A.M. which sounded like this:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Everything simulated is physical ultimately, but the physical has no
signs of being a simulation,
Maybe, but I'm not sure what sort of sign you're talking about and
some have said only half joking that Black Holes,
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 4:16:40 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Everything simulated is physical ultimately, but the physical has no
signs of being a simulation,
Maybe, but I'm not sure what sort of sign you're
Alex Trebek: This tool can unclog a toilet.
Watson: What is a plunger?
Telmo Menezes: look Watson, I have a problem. My wife is mad at me and
I don't know why. I suspect it's because I didn't buy her flowers for
Valentine's, but she keeps telling me that she doesn't want them. Can
you give me
On 3/7/2013 2:37 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Telmo Menezes: look Watson, I have a problem. My wife is mad at me and
I don't know why. I suspect it's because I didn't buy her flowers for
Valentine's, but she keeps telling me that she doesn't want them. Can
you give me some advice? Also, how does it
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 5:37:55 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
Alex Trebek: This tool can unclog a toilet.
Watson: What is a plunger?
Telmo Menezes: look Watson, I have a problem. My wife is mad at me and
I don't know why. I suspect it's because I didn't buy her flowers for
On 3/6/2013 1:45 PM, John Clark wrote:
I just saw the movie Beowulf, it's a pretty good movie but what is
of interest is the stunning advance in animation achieved by good old
Moore's Law. There were times when I could swear I was looking at a
real human being not something a computer
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 1:45:17 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Everything simulated is physical ultimately, but the physical has no
signs of being a simulation,
Maybe, but I'm not sure what sort
On 3/6/2013 10:45 AM, John Clark wrote:
I just saw the movie Beowulf, it's a pretty good movie but what is of interest is the
stunning advance in animation achieved by good old Moore's Law. There were times when I
could swear I was looking at a real human being not something a computer
On 3/6/2013 4:18 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/6/2013 10:45 AM, John Clark wrote:
I just saw the movie Beowulf, it's a pretty good movie but what is
of interest is the stunning advance in animation achieved by good old
Moore's Law. There were times when I could swear I was looking at a
real human
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 6:00:48 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 3/6/2013 4:18 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/6/2013 10:45 AM, John Clark wrote:
I just saw the movie Beowulf, it's a pretty good movie but what is of
interest is the stunning advance in animation achieved by good
On 04 Mar 2013, at 17:06, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
As I've said before it's important not to confuse levels, a
simulated flame won't burn your computer but it will burn a
simulated object.
No, that argument is bogus. There is
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
No software can be run without being grounded in physical hardware,
And no human mind can exist without a physical brain.
and no software can be completely sequestered from any other software
And human ideas cannot no
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:16:59 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
No software can be run without being grounded in physical hardware,
And no human mind can exist without a physical brain.
I wasn't trying to
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
As I've said before it's important not to confuse levels, a simulated
flame won't burn your computer but it will burn a simulated object.
No, that argument is bogus. There is only one physical level.
HOW THE HELL DO YOU
In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120, but we
never need 10^120 + 1.
When we use the known laws of Quantum Mechanics to calculate the strength
of Dark Energy it gives us a value that is ABOUT 10^120 times larger than
the value we actually observe. So a successful Theory
On Monday, March 4, 2013 11:06:46 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
As I've said before it's important not to confuse levels, a simulated
flame won't burn your computer but it will burn a simulated object.
No, that
On 02 Mar 2013, at 21:58, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/2/2013 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2013, at 20:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29,
On 03 Mar 2013, at 01:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/2/2013 1:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2013, at 21:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120,
but we never need 10^120 + 1.
But physics is no more
On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:58, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not at
all indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from
sensory experiences of shapes. Can you dispute this?
Sure. Can you prove
On 01 Mar 2013, at 17:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:58:34 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not at
all indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from
sensory
On 01 Mar 2013, at 20:03, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:41:52 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:23:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On
On 01 Mar 2013, at 20:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John
On 01 Mar 2013, at 21:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120, but
we never need 10^120 + 1.
But physics is no more assumed in the TOE derived from comp.
I'll bet you've never needed to calculate 10^120
On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:02:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 4:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 7:47:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:52
On 3/2/2013 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2013, at 20:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P.
On 3/2/2013 1:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2013, at 21:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120, but we never need
10^120 + 1.
But physics is no more assumed in the TOE derived from comp.
I'll
On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:46:55 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 5:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On
On 28 Feb 2013, at 14:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/28/2013 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:
You are assuming that justification comes from logic; and indeed
it is too much to expect from such a weak source. I look for such
justification as can
On 28 Feb 2013, at 19:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/28/2013 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40,
On 28 Feb 2013, at 19:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:03:40 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On
On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not
Y then X is
On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either.
You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know
On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It
On 3/1/2013 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am pretty sure that x + 0 =
x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc.
I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x.
Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense with such
On 3/1/2013 3:09 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:46:55 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 5:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday,
On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:23:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either.
On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:39:05 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 3:09 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:46:55 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 5:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On
On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not at all
indicated
from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory experiences of
shapes.
Can you dispute this?
Sure. Can you prove it?
Prove what, that
On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:58:34 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not at all
indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory
experiences of shapes. Can you dispute this?
On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am
pretty sure that x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc.
I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x.
Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and
On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:23:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have no way of
On 3/1/2013 8:17 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:58:34 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not at all
indicated from math or computation, and derives solely
On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:41:52 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:23:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent
On 3/1/2013 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120, but we never need 10^120
+ 1.
But physics is no more assumed in the TOE derived from comp.
I'll bet you've never needed to calculate 10^120 + 1 in the world whose TOE is derived
from
On 3/1/2013 11:03 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If we have some written characters is it possible to categorize them optically, but
these categories don't lead to discovery of any phonetic information.
Sure they do. Just try http://www.naturalreaders.com/howto.php?referp=mainbar
Likewise,
On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:10:30 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 11:03 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If we have some written characters is it possible to categorize them
optically, but
these categories don't lead to discovery of any phonetic information.
Sure they do. Just try
On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what order, they
are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.
Repeated assertions aren't evidence.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what
order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.
Repeated assertions aren't evidence.
On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what
order,
they are still always going to be empty, mindless
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
All that matters is that we understand that there is no presentation
quality to a file. Presentation is 100% in the interpreter.
And a computer can be and often is the interpreter.
You are really saying that we
On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what
On 3/1/2013 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It doesn't matter how
On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:37:41 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
All that matters is that we understand that there is no presentation
quality to a file. Presentation is 100% in the interpreter.
And a
On Friday, March 1, 2013 7:47:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:20
On 3/1/2013 4:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together
or in what order, they are still
On 3/1/2013 4:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 7:47:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1,
On 3/1/2013 5:04 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/1/2013 4:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put
On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How did number arise? We
On 2/28/2013 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:
You are assuming that justification comes from logic; and indeed it
is too much to expect from such a weak source. I look for such
justification as can be found from experience, which you demoted to
mere
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Even if it could [ tell the difference between a audio and a video file]
that would only represent a more advanced file analysis function, not any
kind of audio or video sensitivity.
Please explain the difference
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not Y then X
is gibberish,
X = alcohol Y = poison.
becomes alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison
Exactly, and 2 negatives, like isn't
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:08:07 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Even if it could [ tell the difference between a audio and a video file]
that would only represent a more advanced file analysis
On 2/28/2013 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:03:40 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not
not Y then X is gibberish,
X = alcohol Y = poison.
becomes
Thanks. I think you pretty much covered it :)
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:59:55 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
It is a basic law of logic that
On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not Y
then X is
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote
Even if it could [ tell the difference between a audio and a video
file] that would only represent a more advanced file analysis function, not
any kind of audio or video sensitivity.
Please explain the difference
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 3:52:59 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote
Even if it could [ tell the difference between a audio and a video
file] that would only represent a more advanced file analysis
On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either.
You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know about what ways John
knows of having ways of knowing about what you can know...either. :-)
Brent
blather, n.
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either.
You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know about
what ways John knows of having ways of
On 2/28/2013 2:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X
On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either.
You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you
On 2/28/2013 4:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/28/2013 2:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It is
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either.
On 2/28/2013 5:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have
On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if
we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing
Universal), then we cannot derive them.
I'm not sure how you mean that?
On 26 Feb 2013, at 23:38, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno, I appreciate your effort to reply to my silly questions.
Question are never silly.
Answer are always silly.
I accept your positions, nothing 'new' or 'surprising' in them now.
Yet I raised one little suspicion in
...How did number
On 27 Feb 2013, at 00:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/26/2013 2:41 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent:
you jumped into 'counting'. What would that be without numbers?
It's a one-to-one relation between objects. If you invent a special
set of tokens (1, 2, 3) that everybody agrees on (i.e. a part of
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
when a computer is operating correctly it can most certainly tell the
difference between a audio and a video file,
Absolutely false.
How so?
It can tell the difference between one file format and another,
Well that's all
On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:25:41 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
when a computer is operating correctly it can most certainly tell the
difference between a audio and a video file,
Absolutely false.
How so?
On Monday, February 25, 2013 1:29:20 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
It is not ad hominem if it really is blather. I would define blather
as a sound or a sequence of ASCII symbols with zero informational content
On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't assume
them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive
1 - 100 of 184 matches
Mail list logo
