Re: Matter is forever

2019-07-17 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
On 7/17/2019 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Jul 2019, at 19:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 7/16/2019 3:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The consciousness of the universal machine is timeless, and spaceless. It is somehow 100% unfocused, without any attention, and it

Re: Matter is forever

2019-07-17 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
Self-reference is eternal. And then self-reference finds objects within itself, including time, time being an object like any other, like color red. And self-reference itself not being an object, it is not bound to the law of non-contradiction, so it can find multiple objects in itself at the

Re: Matter is forever

2019-07-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 16 Jul 2019, at 19:37, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 7/16/2019 3:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> The consciousness of the universal machine is timeless, and spaceless. It is >> somehow 100% unfocused, without any attention, and it might plausibly be >> related

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-17 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019, at 00:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 12:55 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 16 Jul 2019, at 13:44, PGC wrote: >>> On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 1:53:11 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: I don’t understand well what you say. >>> >>> Nobody,

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-17 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Le mer. 17 juil. 2019 à 00:37, Bruce Kellett a écrit : > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 12:55 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 16 Jul 2019, at 13:44, PGC wrote: >> >> On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 1:53:11 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> >>> I don’t understand well what you say. >>> >> >> Nobody,

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-16 Thread Bruce Kellett
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 12:55 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 16 Jul 2019, at 13:44, PGC wrote: > > On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 1:53:11 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> I don’t understand well what you say. >> > > Nobody, including yourself, understands what you say generally. > > > > Just

Re: Matter is forever

2019-07-16 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
On 7/16/2019 3:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The consciousness of the universal machine is timeless, and spaceless. It is somehow 100% unfocused, without any attention, and it might plausibly be related to the highly dissociative state that some people seemed to describe in experience with

Re: Observation versus assumption

2019-07-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 16 Jul 2019, at 15:51, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 7:24 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >>As I said in my previous post, it's easy to translate Turing's idea into > >>mathematics that is just as abstract as Church's lambda calculus and just >

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 16 Jul 2019, at 13:44, PGC wrote: > > > > On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 1:53:11 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 14 Jul 2019, at 15:01, PGC > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 11:00:30 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 13 Jul 2019, at 12:31, PGC > wrote: >>>

Re: Observation versus assumption

2019-07-16 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 7:24 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >>As I said in my previous post, it's easy to translate Turing's idea into >> mathematics that is just as abstract as Church's lambda calculus and just >> as incapable of actually *doing* anything; however unlike Church Turing can >> do more

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 15 Jul 2019, at 15:39, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 6:31:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 14 Jul 2019, at 11:53, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> If brains (or future biomachines) are standard Turing, then we can make a >> conscious robot out

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-16 Thread PGC
On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 1:53:11 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Jul 2019, at 15:01, PGC > wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 11:00:30 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 13 Jul 2019, at 12:31, PGC wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 10:41:00 AM UTC+2,

Re: Observation versus assumption

2019-07-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 15 Jul 2019, at 23:02, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:25 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > physics, indeed, can clearly do something that mathematics cannot do > > Correct. > > > but that does not mean that such a something is not explainable

Re: Matter is forever

2019-07-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 15 Jul 2019, at 22:10, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 1:53:49 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: > What does "matter" even mean ? Saying "matter is forever" is like saying > "sdgasdga is forever". Both sentences carry the same amount of meaning. > > Is

Re: Observation versus assumption

2019-07-15 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:25 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > physics, indeed, can clearly do something that mathematics cannot do > Correct. > > *but that does not mean that such a something is not explainable by > mathematics.* > Correct again. The English language can be used to explain how the

Re: Matter is forever

2019-07-15 Thread Philip Thrift
On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 1:53:49 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: > > What does "matter" even mean ? Saying "matter is forever" is like saying > "sdgasdga is forever". Both sentences carry the same amount of meaning. > Is consciousness bounded in time? Is it eternal? Or is it timeless?

Re: Matter is forever

2019-07-15 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
What does "matter" even mean ? Saying "matter is forever" is like saying "sdgasdga is forever". Both sentences carry the same amount of meaning. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-15 Thread Philip Thrift
On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 6:31:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Jul 2019, at 11:53, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > If brains (or future biomachines) are standard Turing, then we can make a > conscious robot out of standard processors. > > > OK. > > The expression is a bit fuzzy.

Re: Observation versus assumption

2019-07-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 14 Jul 2019, at 23:46, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:32 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > I never said that Mechanism is a dodgy idea. I explains that it is > > incompatible with (weak) materialism (the belief matter has a irreducible > >

Re: Observation versus assumption

2019-07-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
The quote are not correct. The format is hard to manage. I try, but apology if I missed some of your point. > On 14 Jul 2019, at 12:31, John Clark wrote: > > Bruno Marchal Wrote: > > > That's why INTEL couldn't make computers out of them and had to use atoms > made silicon that obey the

Re: Matter is forever

2019-07-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
This reflects the two main Vedas: Advaita Veda, non dualist, and monist immaterialist. And the Vaita Veda, dualist and (weakly) materialist. See my paper on the West and the East, for a little more, and how the []p/[]p duality makes possible to interpret the Vaita Veda as a phenomenology in the

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 15 Jul 2019, at 00:24, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 11:01 PM PGC > wrote: > On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 11:00:30 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 13 Jul 2019, at 12:31, PGC > wrote: >> On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 10:41:00 AM UTC+2,

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 14 Jul 2019, at 15:01, PGC wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 11:00:30 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 13 Jul 2019, at 12:31, PGC > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 10:41:00 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> I need a formula, and means to test

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 14 Jul 2019, at 14:45, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 7/13/2019 1:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> And it doesn't comport with your definition. >> I am intersted in knowing why you say that. Which part doesn’t comport ? > > For one thing, it isn't consciousness

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 14 Jul 2019, at 11:53, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 4:08:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 13 Jul 2019, at 23:40, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 3:41:00 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 12 Jul 2019, at

Re: Matter is forever

2019-07-14 Thread Philip Thrift
It's a cycle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model @philipthrift On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 1:36:01 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote: > > Aha! Thrift. Have at you! What do you think about last month's reveal, by > the University of Munich upon quasi-particles? > Matter, indeed,

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-14 Thread Bruce Kellett
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 11:01 PM PGC wrote: > On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 11:00:30 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> On 13 Jul 2019, at 12:31, PGC wrote: >> >> On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 10:41:00 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> I need a formula, and means to test it

Re: Observation versus assumption

2019-07-14 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:32 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: *> I never said that Mechanism is a dodgy idea. I explains that it is > incompatible with (weak) materialism (the belief matter has a irreducible > ontology) and that the test (notably quantum mechanics) confirms Mechanism, > and refute (weak)

Re: Matter is forever

2019-07-14 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
Aha! Thrift. Have at you! What do you think about last month's reveal, by the University of Munich upon quasi-particles? Matter, indeed, may be forever?  https://www.realclearscience.com/2019/06/17/quasiparticles_can_become_quotvirtually_immortalquot_286342.htmlIn other words this conceivably

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-14 Thread PGC
On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 11:00:30 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 13 Jul 2019, at 12:31, PGC > wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 10:41:00 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> >> I need a formula, and means to test it experimentally. Just to make some >> sense, and

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-14 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
On 7/13/2019 1:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And it doesn't comport with your definition. I am intersted in knowing why you say that. Which part doesn’t comport ? For one thing, it isn't consciousness OF anything.   Conscious thoughts are about things, they refer. Brent -- You received

Re: Observation versus assumption

2019-07-14 Thread John Clark
Bruno Marchal Wrote: That's why INTEL couldn't make computers out of them and had to use atoms made silicon that obey the laws of physics instead. And that means physics can clearly do something that "mathematical objects" can *NOT *do. > >>*I use the purely mathematical notion of machine,

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-14 Thread Philip Thrift
On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 4:08:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 13 Jul 2019, at 23:40, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 3:41:00 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 12 Jul 2019, at 20:38, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, July 12, 2019

Re: Observation versus assumption

2019-07-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 13 Jul 2019, at 20:42, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 1:29 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote: >> You're atoms are different from what they were a year ago, if you have >> survived that brain transplant operation with your consciousness intact >>

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 13 Jul 2019, at 23:40, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 3:41:00 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 12 Jul 2019, at 20:38, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 9:52:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 12 Jul 2019, at

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 13 Jul 2019, at 12:31, PGC wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 10:41:00 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > I need a formula, and means to test it experimentally. Just to make some > sense, and compare with the consequence of Mechanism. > > If you disagree with the proof of

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-13 Thread Philip Thrift
On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 3:41:00 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Jul 2019, at 20:38, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 9:52:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 12 Jul 2019, at 12:24, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, July 12, 2019

Re: Observation versus assumption

2019-07-13 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 1:29 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > You're atoms are different from what they were a year ago, if you >>> have survived that brain transplant operation with your consciousness >>> intact (and only you know if it has) >> >> > > *> >>OK. That is my point.* >> > > >> No, I

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-13 Thread PGC
On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 10:41:00 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > I need a formula, and means to test it experimentally. Just to make some > sense, and compare with the consequence of Mechanism. > > If you disagree with the proof of the incompatibility of Mechanism and > (weak)

Re: Artist and Picture by J.W. Dunne

2019-07-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 12 Jul 2019, at 20:19, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 7/12/2019 1:28 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Is it not how evolution is working ? By iteration and random modification, >> new better organisms come to existence ? >> >> Why AI could not use

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 12 Jul 2019, at 20:38, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 9:52:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 12 Jul 2019, at 12:24, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 4:56:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> I have been

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 12 Jul 2019, at 21:18, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 7/12/2019 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> I have only precise definition and theorem. You can always cricicze >> definitions, but then provide better one please. > > When you are defining something

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 12 Jul 2019, at 21:10, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 7/12/2019 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 11 Jul 2019, at 19:48, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/11/2019 3:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 10 Jul 2019, at

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-12 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
On 7/12/2019 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I have only precise definition and theorem. You can always cricicze definitions, but then provide better one please. When you are defining something that everyone supposedly knows, then the definition is ostensive.  A descriptive definition must

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-12 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
On 7/12/2019 2:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Jul 2019, at 19:48, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 7/11/2019 3:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jul 2019, at 23:04, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 7/10/2019 7:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The machine

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-12 Thread Philip Thrift
On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 9:52:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 Jul 2019, at 12:24, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 4:56:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> >> I have been mocked for twenty years on this, by dogmatic materialist >> believers,

Re: Artist and Picture by J.W. Dunne

2019-07-12 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
On 7/12/2019 1:28 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi, Is it not how evolution is working ? By iteration and random modification, new better organisms come to existence ? Why AI could not use iterating evolution to make better and better AI ? Also if *we build* a real AGI, isn't it the same

Re: Artist and Picture by J.W. Dunne

2019-07-12 Thread Terren Suydam
It's just a question of time. The FOOM scenario is motivated by safety concerns - that AI's intelligence could surpass our ability to deal with it, leading to the Singularity. So it's not about whether those other paths are possible, it's about how long they would take, and in each of those cases,

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
ERRATA: > On 12 Jul 2019, at 11:56, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> On 12 Jul 2019, at 03:12, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:09 PM Bruno Marchal > > wrote: >> On 11 Jul 2019, at 14:23, Bruce Kellett >

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 12 Jul 2019, at 12:24, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 4:56:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > I have been mocked for twenty years on this, by dogmatic materialist > believers, until I proved the point (which has transformed the funny mockery > in

Re: Artist and Picture by J.W. Dunne

2019-07-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 12 Jul 2019, at 06:28, Terren Suydam wrote: > > Sure, but that's not the "FOOM" scenario, in which an AI modifies its own > source code, gets smarter, and with the increase in intelligence, is able to > make yet more modifications to its own source code, and so on, until its >

Re: Artist and Picture by J.W. Dunne

2019-07-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 12 Jul 2019, at 10:28, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Hi, > > Is it not how evolution is working ? By iteration and random modification, > new better organisms come to existence ? > > Why AI could not use iterating evolution to make better and better AI ? > > Also if *we build* a real AGI,

Re: Artist and Picture by J.W. Dunne

2019-07-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 12 Jul 2019, at 10:28, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Hi, > > Is it not how evolution is working ? By iteration and random modification, > new better organisms come to existence ? > > Why AI could not use iterating evolution to make better and better AI ? > > Also if *we build* a real AGI,

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-07-12 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
In my city, Bucharest. It's the Romanian Athenaeum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Athenaeum -- 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

Re: Artist and Picture by J.W. Dunne

2019-07-12 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Le ven. 12 juil. 2019 à 11:53, Philip Thrift a écrit : > > > AI researchers have been using *genetic algorithms* and *artificial life* > to "evolve" AI programs since the 1970s. > > @philipthrift > > I know, that's why I'm asking Terren about his position... > > > On Friday, July 12, 2019 at

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-12 Thread Philip Thrift
On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 4:56:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > I have been mocked for twenty years on this, by dogmatic materialist > believers, until I proved the point (which has transformed the funny > mockery in violent hate and defamation). > > Everyone would benefit of making

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 12 Jul 2019, at 03:12, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:09 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > On 11 Jul 2019, at 14:23, Bruce Kellett > wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 8:40 PM Bruno Marchal >

Re: Artist and Picture by J.W. Dunne

2019-07-12 Thread Philip Thrift
AI researchers have been using *genetic algorithms* and *artificial life* to "evolve" AI programs since the 1970s. @philipthrift On Friday, July 12, 2019 at 3:28:59 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Hi, > > Is it not how evolution is working ? By iteration and random modification, > new

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 11 Jul 2019, at 19:48, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 7/11/2019 3:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 10 Jul 2019, at 23:04, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/10/2019 7:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The machine define by

Re: Artist and Picture by J.W. Dunne

2019-07-12 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Hi, Is it not how evolution is working ? By iteration and random modification, new better organisms come to existence ? Why AI could not use iterating evolution to make better and better AI ? Also if *we build* a real AGI, isn't it the same thing ? Wouldn't we have built a better, smarter

Re: Artist and Picture by J.W. Dunne

2019-07-12 Thread Philip Thrift
On self-modifying AI, see also https://intelligence.org/files/TilingAgentsDraft.pdf We model self-modification in AI by introducing “tiling” agents whose decision systems will approve the construction of highly similar agents, creating a repeating pattern (including similarity of the

Re: Artist and Picture by J.W. Dunne

2019-07-11 Thread Terren Suydam
Sure, but that's not the "FOOM" scenario, in which an AI modifies its own source code, gets smarter, and with the increase in intelligence, is able to make yet more modifications to its own source code, and so on, until its intelligence far outstrips its previous capabilities before the recursive

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-11 Thread Bruce Kellett
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:09 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 11 Jul 2019, at 14:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 8:40 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> > On 10 Jul 2019, at 23:04, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >>

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-07-11 Thread Philip Thrift
Where is this? @philipthrift On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 4:26:37 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: > > [image: I Am.jpg] > > -- 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,

Re: Artist and Picture by J.W. Dunne

2019-07-11 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
Advances in intelligence can just be gaining more factual knowledge, knowing more mathematics, using faster algorithms, etc.  None of that is barred by not being able to model oneself. Brent On 7/11/2019 11:41 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: Similarly, one can never completely understand one's own

Re: Artist and Picture by J.W. Dunne

2019-07-11 Thread Philip Thrift
On Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 1:29:38 PM UTC-5, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > > "A certain artist, having escaped from the lunatic asylum in which, > rightly or wrongly, he had be confined, purchased the materials of his > craft and set to work to make a complete picture of the universe." > > ... >

Re: Artist and Picture by J.W. Dunne

2019-07-11 Thread Terren Suydam
Similarly, one can never completely understand one's own mind, for it would take a bigger mind than one has to do so. This, I believe, is the best argument against the runaway-intelligence scenarios in which sufficiently advanced AIs recursively improve their own code to achieve ever increasing

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-11 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
On 7/11/2019 3:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jul 2019, at 23:04, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 7/10/2019 7:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The machine define by the two following equations Kxy = x and Sxyz = xz(yz) + S ≠ K, and with the combinator induction axiom (that I

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 11 Jul 2019, at 14:23, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 8:40 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > On 10 Jul 2019, at 23:04, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 7/10/2019

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-11 Thread Bruce Kellett
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 8:40 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 10 Jul 2019, at 23:04, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 7/10/2019 7:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> The machine define by the two following equations Kxy = x and Sxyz

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 10 Jul 2019, at 23:04, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 7/10/2019 7:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> The machine define by the two following equations Kxy = x and Sxyz = xz(yz) >> + S ≠ K, and with the combinator induction axiom (that I gave some posts >> ago) is

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-10 Thread Philip Thrift
On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 3:24:34 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 7/10/2019 2:50 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > If no computer scientist will ever make a conscious machine out of > > whatever size network of ARM (or even QuARM) processors running its > > native machine code, then that's

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-10 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
On 7/10/2019 7:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The machine define by the two following equations Kxy = x and Sxyz = xz(yz) + S ≠ K, and with the combinator induction axiom (that I gave some posts ago) is already as much conscious than you and me. Which in it self is a reductio of your theory.

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-10 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
On 7/10/2019 2:50 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: If no computer scientist will ever make a conscious machine out of whatever size network of ARM (or even QuARM) processors running its native machine code, then that's a clue. But how can that be a clue?  If consciousness is defined as an

Re: Observation versus assumption

2019-07-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 10 Jul 2019, at 15:28, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:22 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >> You're atoms are different from what they were a year ago, if you have > >> survived that brain transplant operation with your consciousness intact > >>

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 10 Jul 2019, at 11:50, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 4:31:23 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 9 Jul 2019, at 21:50, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 6:52:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 8 Jul 2019, at

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-10 Thread Philip Thrift
On Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 4:31:23 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 9 Jul 2019, at 21:50, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 6:52:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 8 Jul 2019, at 12:42, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, July 8, 2019 at

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 9 Jul 2019, at 21:50, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 6:52:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 8 Jul 2019, at 12:42, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 4:58:32 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 6 Jul 2019, at

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-09 Thread Philip Thrift
On Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 6:52:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 8 Jul 2019, at 12:42, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 4:58:32 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 6 Jul 2019, at 13:32, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 8 Jul 2019, at 12:42, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 4:58:32 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 6 Jul 2019, at 13:32, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 1:42:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 6 Jul 2019, at

Re: Observation versus assumption (was: anecdote of Moon landing)

2019-07-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 6 Jul 2019, at 16:17, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 8:48:42 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > ... the "Löbian machine" idea can not help anyone understand anything. > > > "Löbian machines" (or "theorem provers") are a key technology at MIRI [ >

Re: Observation versus assumption (was: anecdote of Moon landing)

2019-07-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 6 Jul 2019, at 15:48, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:19 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote: >> >>> Science guarantee that we cannot be certain that compuytaionalism is >> >>> true, > >> It makes no difference if it's true or not, > > > It makes the

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-08 Thread Philip Thrift
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 4:58:32 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 6 Jul 2019, at 13:32, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 1:42:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 6 Jul 2019, at 05:57, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> > Whatever logic it is, its

Re: subjective experience

2019-07-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 6 Jul 2019, at 13:32, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 1:42:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 6 Jul 2019, at 05:57, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 9:27:11 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 4 Jul 2019, at

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

2019-07-08 Thread Philip Thrift
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 7:15:17 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 7/7/2019 6:25 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > But the point is this topic was discussed for 20 years, beginning in the > group started by Victor Stenger (Timeless Reality). Physics does not rule > backward (or downward, for

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

2019-07-07 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
On 7/7/2019 6:25 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 7:50:10 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 7:41:24 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 7:03:05 AM UTC-5, Eva wrote: @Lawrence Crowell

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

2019-07-07 Thread Philip Thrift
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 4:14:16 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 2:18:15 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 7/6/2019 4:50 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> n Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:04:18 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> *In conclusion, we

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

2019-07-07 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 2:18:15 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 7/6/2019 4:50 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > n Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:04:18 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> *In conclusion, we have demonstrated quantum entanglement between two >> photons that do not share

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

2019-07-07 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
Read Nick Lane.  He makes a good argument for a metabolism first abiogenesis.  He observes that the ADP<->ATP energy cycle is the same in every organism and he shows how it could have originated in alkaline ocean vents. Brent On 7/6/2019 5:09 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 6:34

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

2019-07-07 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
On 7/6/2019 4:50 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: n Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:04:18 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: /In conclusion, we have demonstrated quantum entanglement between two photons that do not share coexistence. Although one photon is measured even before the other is

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

2019-07-07 Thread Philip Thrift
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 7:50:10 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 7:41:24 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 7:03:05 AM UTC-5, Eva wrote: >>> >>> @Lawrence Crowell >>> >>> Very interesting, does it mean that everything is

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

2019-07-07 Thread PGC
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 11:52:41 AM UTC+2, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > He does have the correct *contemplative, far-away look* on his home page: > > http://nick-lane.net/ > Heh! Yeah good try on the look. For yours truly it's gotta be the chest out, stoic, pointing out into the

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

2019-07-07 Thread Philip Thrift
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 7:41:24 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 7:03:05 AM UTC-5, Eva wrote: >> >> @Lawrence Crowell >> >> Very interesting, does it mean that everything is connected not only >> spatially but also temporarily? >> > > Sort of. The Wheeler

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

2019-07-07 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 7:03:05 AM UTC-5, Eva wrote: > > @Lawrence Crowell > > Very interesting, does it mean that everything is connected not only > spatially but also temporarily? > Sort of. The Wheeler delayed choice experiment indicates there is a time aspect to entanglement as well.

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

2019-07-07 Thread Eva
@Lawrence Crowell Very interesting, does it mean that everything is connected not only spatially but also temporarily? @Philip Thrift Retrocausation? So, I'm thirsty because I will drink water? This is to much for me :/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

2019-07-07 Thread Philip Thrift
He does have the correct *contemplative, far-away look* on his home page: http://nick-lane.net/ *Acetyl phosphate as a primordial energy currency at the origin of life* Alexandra Whicher, Eloi Camprubi, Silvana Pinna, Barry Herschy and Nick Lane Orig Life Evol Biosph (2018)

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

2019-07-07 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
I think Nick Lane's metabolism-first theory, which he discusses in his book "The Vital Question", is more plausible.  There's good online talk by Lane https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhPrirmk8F4. Brent On 7/6/2019 8:32 AM, smitra wrote: https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.01945 A followup article

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

2019-07-06 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
. Noteworthy, if possible?  -Original Message- From: smitra To: everything-list Sent: Sat, Jul 6, 2019 6:43 pm Subject: Re: The origin of life has not been explained Although there is an element of panspermia in this proposal, as I explain in the conclusion, the panspermia element is a side

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

2019-07-06 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 6:34 PM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: *> The idea of the RNA world runs into trouble with the ribosome, which is > a hugely complex system of RNA and proteins* In the RNA world there would be nothing nearly as large and competent as modern

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

2019-07-06 Thread Philip Thrift
You are completely clueless, and in addition give false information about the subject. @philipthrift On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:50:29 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:04:18 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> *In conclusion, we have demonstrated

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >