On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
But you can't stay awake unless your hardware allows it.
So what? I can't shoot a gun unless the trigger works. Does that mean I'm
not shooting the gun by pulling the trigger?
You are external to the gun, but you
On Friday, November 2, 2012 8:18:29 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
But you can't stay awake unless your hardware allows it.
So what? I can't shoot a gun unless the trigger works. Does that mean I'm
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm talking about *every experiment* that has been done. There is nothing
to misunderstand. When I change my mind, through my own thought or though
some image or suggestion, that change is reflected as a passive
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:43:07 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I'm talking about *every experiment* that has been done. There is nothing
to misunderstand. When I change my mind, through my own
On 11/1/2012 8:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have already explained it over and over. You aren't listening to me. I understand
every bit of your argument. It is my argument that you don't understand. I used to
believe what you believe. I know better now.
The question is how do you know
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:43:07 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm talking about *every experiment* that has been done. There is nothing
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 10:03:18 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 11/1/2012 8:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have already explained it over and over. You aren't listening to me.
I understand
every bit of your argument. It is my argument that you don't understand.
I used to
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 10:03:21 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 8:43:07 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Craig Weinberg
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:25 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
Building more complex structures out of simpler ones
by a simple set of rules (or any set of rules) seems to violate the second law
of thermodynamics. Do you have a way around the second law ?
of small things.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/29/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-28, 05:47:58
Subject: Re: Solipsism = 1p
On Sun, Oct
*Bruno*, I cannot keep up with argumentation that includes opposites to ALL
tenets previously stated. Who knows what kind of *'hardwire* does a brain
have (I mean: not the physiological tissue-construct, but the complex brain*
function* also called 'brain). Anatomists, physiologists, neurologists
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that you do not understand the meaning of the term consistent
with the laws of physics. It means that when you decide to play tennis the
neurons in your brain will depolarise because of the ionic gradients,
On 27 Oct 2012, at 17:49, John Mikes wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 26 Oct 2012, at 14:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:01:34 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg
On Sunday, October 28, 2012 5:48:29 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
It seems that you do not understand the meaning of the term consistent
with the laws of physics. It means that when you decide to play
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 8:08 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Stathis:
IMO you left out one difference in equating computer and human: the
programmed comp. cannot exceed its hardwre - given content while
(SOMEHOW???) a human mind receives additional information from parts
'unknown'
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 6:28:14 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 8:08 AM, John Mikes jam...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Stathis:
IMO you left out one difference in equating computer and human: the
programmed comp. cannot exceed its hardwre - given content
On 26 Oct 2012, at 14:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:01:34 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.com wrote:
We are atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, and organisms. Whatever
we do is
what the laws of physics
John,
A fixed universal machine (some hardwired one, like a brain or a
laptop) can emulate a self-modifying universal machine, even one which
modifies itself completely.
Bruno
On 26 Oct 2012, at 23:08, John Mikes wrote:
Stathis:
IMO you left out one difference in equating computer and
Stathis,
do you think Lucy had the same (thinking?) hardware as you have? are you
negating (human and other) development (I evade 'evolution') as e.g. the
famous cases of mutation? Is all that RD a reshuffling of what WAS
already knowable?
Maybe my agnosticism dictates different potentials at
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 9:18:33 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Oct 2012, at 14:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:01:34 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
We are atoms, molecules,
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
How can a human exceed his hardware? Everything he does must be due to
the hardware plus input from the environment, same as the computer,
same as everything else in the universe.
What input from the environment
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 2:38 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Stathis,
do you think Lucy had the same (thinking?) hardware as you have? are you
negating (human and other) development (I evade 'evolution') as e.g. the
famous cases of mutation? Is all that RD a reshuffling of what WAS
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Oct 2012, at 14:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:01:34 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
We are atoms, molecules,
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.comjavascript:;
wrote:
No. What we as humans do is determined by human experiences and human
character, which is not completely ruled externally. We participate
directly. It could only be a small set of rules if those rules
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 11:47:14 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
How can a human exceed his hardware? Everything he does must be due to
the hardware plus input from the environment, same as the
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 1:03:52 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
No. What we as humans do is determined by human experiences and human
character, which is not completely ruled externally. We participate
On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:01:34 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
We are atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, and organisms. Whatever we do
is
what the laws of physics *actually are*. Your assumptions
Stathis:
IMO you left out one difference in equating computer and human: the
programmed comp. cannot exceed its hardwre - given content while
(SOMEHOW???) a human mind receives additional information from parts
'unknown' (see the steps forward in cultural history of the sciences?) -
accordingly a
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you believed that our brains were already nothing but computers, then you
would say that it would know which option to take the same way that Google
knows which options to show you. I argue that can only get you
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:25:48 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
If you believed that our brains were already nothing but computers, then
you
would say that it would know which option to take the
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Intentionally lying, defying it's programming, committing murder would all
be good indicators. Generally when an error is blamed on the computer itself
rather than the programming, that would be a good sign.
A
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:39:27 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Intentionally lying, defying it's programming, committing murder would
all
be good indicators. Generally when an error is blamed on
On 10/25/2012 4:38 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Intentionally lying, defying it's programming, committing murder would all
be good indicators. Generally when an error is blamed on the computer itself
rather than
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:39:27 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
Intentionally lying, defying it's programming, committing murder would
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
We are atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, and organisms. Whatever we do is
what the laws of physics *actually are*. Your assumptions about the laws of
physics are 20th century legacy ideas based on exterior
On 23 Oct 2012, at 15:11, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
SNIP
ROGER: OK, but computers can't experience anything,
it would be simulated experience. Not arbitrarily available.
But that's what the brain does, simulate experience from the point of
view of the owner or liver of the
On 23 Oct 2012, at 17:46, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 10:15:15 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Oct 2012, at 18:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2012 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's what the brain does, simulate experience
On 23 Oct 2012, at 20:21, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/23/2012 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Oct 2012, at 18:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2012 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's what the brain does, simulate experience from the point
of
view
the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-24, 07:37:32
Subject: Re: Solipsism = 1p
On 23 Oct 2012, at 15:11, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
ROGER: OK, but computers can't experience anything,
it would be simulated experience
-10-24, 08:57:19
Subject: Re: Solipsism = 1p
On 23 Oct 2012, at 20:21, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/23/2012 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Oct 2012, at 18:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2012 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's what
-
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-23, 14:40:32
Subject: Re: Solipsism = 1p
On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:21:30 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/23/2012 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Oct 2012, at 18:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday
-
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-23, 14:21:44
Subject: Re: Solipsism = 1p
On 10/23/2012 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Oct 2012, at 18:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2012 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote
Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-24, 08:57:19
Subject: Re: Solipsism = 1p
On 23 Oct 2012, at 20:21, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/23/2012 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Oct 2012, at 18:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2012 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
On 10/24/2012 10:01 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
How can you know that the simulation is exact ?
Solipsim prevents that.
And who or what experiences the computer output ?
Roger Clough,rclo...@verizon.net
10/24/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody
content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-24, 07:37:32
Subject: Re: Solipsism = 1p
On 23 Oct 2012, at 15:11, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
ROGER: OK, but computers can't experience anything,
it would be simulated experience. Not arbitrarily available
Hi Bruno Marchal
SNIP
ROGER: OK, but computers can't experience anything,
it would be simulated experience. Not arbitrarily available.
But that's what the brain does, simulate experience from the point of
view of the owner or liver of the experience. According to some
theory. You
On 22 Oct 2012, at 18:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2012 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's what the brain does, simulate experience from the point of
view of the owner or liver of the experience. According to some
theory. You can't talk like if you knew
On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 10:15:15 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Oct 2012, at 18:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2012 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's what the brain does, simulate experience from the point of
view of the owner or liver
On 10/23/2012 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Oct 2012, at 18:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2012 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's what the brain does, simulate experience from the
point of
view of the owner or liver of the experience.
On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:21:30 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/23/2012 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Oct 2012, at 18:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2012 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's what the brain does, simulate
being too demanding.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/22/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-21, 16:53:03
Subject: Re: Re: Solipsism = 1p
is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-21, 16:53:03
Subject: Re: Re: Solipsism = 1p
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 3:39:11 PM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
BRUNO: Keep
On 21 Oct 2012, at 21:37, Roger Clough wrote:
On 20 Oct 2012, at 13:55, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I think if you converse with a real person, he has to
have a body or at least vocal chords or the ability to write.
BRUNO: Not necessarily. Its brain can be in vat, and then I
On Monday, October 22, 2012 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's what the brain does, simulate experience from the point of
view of the owner or liver of the experience. According to some
theory. You can't talk like if you knew that this is false.
This is the
:09:59
Subject: Re: Solipsism = 1p
On 18 Oct 2012, at 20:05, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I think you can tell is 1p isn't just a shell
by trying to converse with it. If it can
converse, it's got a mind of its own.
I agree with. It has mind, and its has a soul (but he
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 3:39:11 PM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
BRUNO: Keep in mind that zombie, here, is a technical term. By definition
it
behaves like a human. No humans at all can tell the difference. Only
God knows, if you want.
ROGER: I claim that it is impossible for any
: Solipsism = 1p
On 18 Oct 2012, at 20:05, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I think you can tell is 1p isn't just a shell
by trying to converse with it. If it can
converse, it's got a mind of its own.
I agree with. It has mind, and its has a soul (but he has no real
bodies. I can argue
content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-19, 14:09:59
Subject: Re: Solipsism = 1p
On 18 Oct 2012, at 20:05, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I think you can tell is 1p isn't just a shell
by trying to converse with it. If it can
converse, it's got a mind of its
, rclo...@verizon.net
10/18/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-17, 13:36:13
Subject: Re: Solipsism = 1p
On 17 Oct 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno
-
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-17, 13:36:13
Subject: Re: Solipsism = 1p
On 17 Oct 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno
Solipsism is a property of 1p= Firstness = subjectivity
OK. And non solipsism is about attributing 1p to others, which
Hi Bruno
Solipsism is a property of 1p= Firstness = subjectivity
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/17/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-16,
On 17 Oct 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno
Solipsism is a property of 1p= Firstness = subjectivity
OK. And non solipsism is about attributing 1p to others, which needs
some independent 3p reality you can bet one, for not being only part
of yourself. Be it a God, or a
62 matches
Mail list logo