Le 05-oct.-06, à 04:01, Brent Meeker a écrit :
There is another possibility: that consciousness is relative to what
it is conscious
*of* and any computation that implements consciousness must also
implement the whole
world which the consciousness is conscious of. In that case there may
Brent Meeker wrote:
There is another possibility: that consciousness is relative to what it is
conscious
*of* and any computation that implements consciousness must also implement
the whole
world which the consciousness is conscious of. In that case there may be
only one,
unique
- Original Message -
Subject: Re: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)
(Brent's quote):
David Nyman wrote:
(I skip the discussion...)
In other words, a 'computation' can be
anything I say it is (cf. Hofstadter for some particularly egregious
examples).
David, could you give us 'some'
Stathis:
let me skip the quoted texts and ask a particular question.
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:41 PM
Subject: RE: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)
You wrote:
Do you believe it is possible to copy a particular
Le 04-oct.-06, à 18:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
That is how YOU formulate these concepts in YOUR mind (i.e.
comprehension),
Yes, but I make that comprehension sharable by being clear on the hypotheses.
I would say that this is how science work. We make theories, which can only just be
Only atheist have reason to dislike the consequence of
comp. Not because they would be wrong, but
because their belief in nature is shown to need an act of faith
(and atheists hate the very notion of faith).
Bruno
That is the most absurd statement so far
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, a 'computation' can be
anything I say it is (cf. Hofstadter for some particularly egregious
examples).
David, could you give us 'some' of these, or at least an URL to find such?
John
I was thinking of various examples in 'Godel, Escher,
Le 05-oct.-06, à 16:03, Lennart Nilsson a écrit :
Only atheist have reason to dislike the consequence of comp. Not because they would be wrong, but because their belief in nature is shown to need an act of faith (and atheists hate the very notion of faith).
Bruno
That is the most absurd
To
be an atheist means to deny God, not to believe i nature.
Från: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] För Bruno Marchal
Skickat: den 5 oktober 2006 17:07
Till:
everything-list@googlegroups.com
Ämne: Re: SV: Barbour's mistake:
An
Le 05-oct.-06, à 17:15, Lennart Nilsson a écrit :
x-tad-biggerTo be an atheist means to deny God, not to believe i ”nature”./x-tad-bigger
Fair enough.
My confusion (it is still debatable) comes from the fact that I have never met a real atheist (as opposed to an agnostic who believes to be
David, thanks.
Hofstadter's G-E-B is a delightful (BIG) book, I regret that I lost my
(voracious ?) reading situation (possibility), especially to re-read it.
Just next week I will quote GEB at a recital I will perform for our area
music club about the Wohltemperiertes which Bach wrote for his
George Levy wrote:
The correct conclusion IMHO is that consciousness is independent of
time, space, substrate and level and in fact can span all of these just
as Maudlin partially demonstrated - but you still need an implementation
-- so what is left? Like the Cheshire cat, nothing except
Bruno,
I started to read [the English version of] your discourse on Origin of
Physical Laws and Sensations. I will read more later. It is certainly
very interesting and thought provoking. It makes me think of 'Reasons
and Persons' by Derek Parfitt. His book is very dry in places but
mostly very
On Thu, October 5, 2006 11:49, markpeaty wrote:
That said, I read with interest a year or two ago about certain kinds
of insects [I think they are in North America somewhere] which lie
dormant in the earth in some pre-adult stage for a PRIME number of
years, 11, 13, were chosen by different
Bruno,
kind reply, I was not ironical. You
did not deny my position that ALL you do is coming from YOUR mind. However your
justification ends with a 'funny' word: FACTS. What would YOU accept as facts
and what would I? (Mind-body? our conscious feelings of a 'body(?) and all its
accessory
15 matches
Mail list logo
