On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 4:22 PM, George Levy gl...@quantics.net wrote:
Kelly Harmon wrote:
What if you used a lookup table for only a single neuron in a computer
simulation of a brain?
Hi Kelly
Zombie arguments involving look up tables are faulty because look up tables
are not closed
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On the contrary, I think it does. First, I think Chalmers idea that
vitalists recognized that all that needed explaining was structure and
function is revisionist history. They were looking for the animating
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I agree with your critic of consciousness = information. This is not
even wrong,
Ouch! Et tu, Bruno???
and Kelly should define what he means by information so
that we could see what he really means.
Okay, okay! I
That is also my case. I wonder how the materialist hypothesis has
advanced in a plausible explanation of consciousness, and I think that
this is the right path, and I follow it. But at the deep level, my
subjective experience tells me that I must remain dualist.
I think however that for
Abram:
Maybe you started at an earlier age and at the 'beginning' (school?).
I used my own common sense logic with my 2 doctorates in a 1/2 century
successful RD activity in natural sciencences and THEN tried to barge into
scientific logics in medias res. My mistake.
Now - another 1/4 c. later I
Hi Abram,
On 18 May 2009, at 21:53, Abram Demski wrote:
Bruno,
I know just a little about the curry-howard isomorphism... I looked
into it somewhat, because I was thinking about the possibility of
representing programs as proof methods (so that a single run of the
program would
Hi John,
On 18 May 2009, at 21:00, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
could you tell in one sentence YOUR identification for logic?
That is a difficult question, and to be honest, I am still searching.
As a platonist (that is: classical logician) I am OK with the idea
that logic is the abstract
Kelly Harmon wrote:
...
So I think the possibility (conceivability?) of conscious computer
simulations is what throws a kink into this line of thought.
No, that's why I wrote ...relative to an environment. In Moravec's
thought experiment the consciousness is relative to simulation.
On 19 May 2009, at 10:13, Kelly Harmon wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I agree with your critic of consciousness = information. This is
not
even wrong,
Ouch! Et tu, Bruno???
Apology. I was a bit rude.
and Kelly should define
Hi Alberto,
On 19 May 2009, at 11:37, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
That is also my case. I wonder how the materialist hypothesis has
advanced in a plausible explanation of consciousness, and I think that
this is the right path, and I follow it. But at the deep level, my
subjective experience
I would like to branch away temporarily, due to the Star Trek movie.
Is it the case in MWI, that a decision is made in Universe A
(destruction of the Kelvin). Before that event, the Universe, or at
least the causal part of it has a certain physical configuration.
Immediately after that event,
As always, thanks, Bruno for taking the time to educate this bum.
Starting at the bottom:
To ask a logician the meaning of the signs, (...) is like asking
the logician what is logic, and no two logicians can agree on the
possible answer to that question.
*This is why I asked -- YOUR --
12 matches
Mail list logo
