On 23 Oct 2012, at 08:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/22/2012 11:35 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/22/2012 6:05 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I don't understand why you're focusing on NP-hard problems... NP-
hard problems are
solvable algorithmically... but not efficiently. When I read you
(I'm
On 26 Oct 2012, at 21:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/25/2012 10:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Oct 2012, at 20:29, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/24/2012 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Oct 2012, at 06:03, Stephen P. King wrote:
What difference does what they refer to
On 10/25/2012 10:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Oct 2012, at 20:29, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/24/2012 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Oct 2012, at 06:03, Stephen P. King wrote:
What difference does what they refer to matter? Eventually there
has to be some physical process or
On 24 Oct 2012, at 20:29, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/24/2012 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Oct 2012, at 06:03, Stephen P. King wrote:
What difference does what they refer to matter? Eventually
there has to be some physical process or we would be incapable of
even thinking
: Interactions between mind and brain
On 10/23/2012 3:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/23/2012 1:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/23/2012 3:40 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/23/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/22/2012 11:35 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/22/2012 6:05 AM, Quentin Anciaux
On 24 Oct 2012, at 06:03, Stephen P. King wrote:
What difference does what they refer to matter? Eventually there
has to be some physical process or we would be incapable of even
thinking about them! The resources to perform the computation are
either available or they are not.
On 10/24/2012 4:56 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
Just because something has no extension in space
I wrote location not extension - don't misquote me.
(physical existence) doesn't mean it doesn't exist mentally,
for example in Platonia.
But existing mentally isn't the same as
On 10/24/2012 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Oct 2012, at 06:03, Stephen P. King wrote:
What difference does what they refer to matter? Eventually there
has to be some physical process or we would be incapable of even
thinking about them! The resources to perform the computation
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
A top-down effect of consciousness on matter could be inferred if
miraculous events were observed in neurophysiology research. The
consciousness itself cannot be directly observed.
Hi Stathis,
This would be
On 10/22/2012 11:35 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/22/2012 6:05 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I don't understand why you're focusing on NP-hard problems... NP-hard problems
are
solvable algorithmically... but not efficiently. When I read you (I'm surely
misinterpreting), it seems like you're
On 10/23/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/22/2012 11:35 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/22/2012 6:05 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I don't understand why you're focusing on NP-hard problems...
NP-hard problems are
solvable algorithmically... but not efficiently. When I read you
(I'm surely
...@verizon.net
10/23/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-22, 14:35:15
Subject: Re: Interactions between mind and brain
On 10/22/2012 6:05 AM, Quentin
On 10/23/2012 3:40 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/23/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/22/2012 11:35 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/22/2012 6:05 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I don't understand why you're focusing on NP-hard problems... NP-hard problems
are
solvable algorithmically... but
, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-22, 14:35:15
Subject: Re: Interactions between mind and brain
On 10/22/2012 6:05 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I don't understand why you're focusing on NP-hard
Hi, Stephen,
you wrote some points in accordance with my thinking (whatever that is
worth) with one point I disagree with:
if you want to argue a point, do not accept it as a base for your argument
(even negatively not). You do that all the time. (SPK? etc.) -
My fundamental question: what do you
On 10/23/2012 1:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/23/2012 3:40 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/23/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/22/2012 11:35 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/22/2012 6:05 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I don't understand why you're focusing on NP-hard problems...
NP-hard
On 10/23/2012 3:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/23/2012 1:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/23/2012 3:40 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/23/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/22/2012 11:35 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/22/2012 6:05 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I don't understand why
On 10/23/2012 4:53 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Hi, Stephen,
you wrote some points in accordance with my thinking (whatever that is
worth) with one point I disagree with:
if you want to argue a point, do not accept it as a base for your
argument (even negatively not). You do that all the time. (SPK?
On 10/23/2012 7:16 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/23/2012 3:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/23/2012 1:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/23/2012 3:40 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
snip
But you wrote, Both require the prior existence of a solution to a
NP-Hard problem. An existence that is
2012/10/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 10/21/2012 7:14 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
If there is a top-down effect of the mind on the atoms then there we
would expect some scientific evidence of
On 10/22/2012 6:05 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I don't understand why you're focusing on NP-hard problems... NP-hard
problems are solvable algorithmically... but not efficiently. When I
read you (I'm surely misinterpreting), it seems like you're saying you
can't solve NP-hard problems... it's
On 10/21/2012 7:14 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
If there is a top-down effect of the mind on the atoms then there we
would expect some scientific evidence of this. Evidence would
constitute, for example, neurons
22 matches
Mail list logo
