On 12 Aug 2009, at 04:32, David Nyman wrote:
>
> 2009/8/11 Bruno Marchal :
>
> Bruno, thanks for your detailed responses which I will peruse closely.
> Meanwhile, I finally managed to locate on FOR an apparently coherent
> summary of the MGA (which I understand to be the essence of UDA-8).
> Her
Colin,
We agree on the conclusion. We disagree on vocabulary, and on the
validity of your reasoning.
Let us call I-comp the usual indexical mechanism discussed in this
list (comp).
Let us call m-comp the thesis that there is a primitive "natural
world", and that it can be described by a dig
On 11 Aug 2009, at 02:06, ronaldheld wrote:
>
> I am behind, because I was away delivering Science talk to Star Trek
> fans.
> I am uncertain what to take away from this thread, and could use the
> clarification.
I will think about it. It could help if you were a bit more specific.
>
> As an
2009/8/12 Bruno Marchal :
>> The solution then seems obviously to be to throw one or other of these
>> supposed causal principles out, i.e.:
>>
>> 1) either it is the case that consciousness simply supervenes on
>> particular physical activities whose computational status is
>> irrelevant;
>
> ..
On 12 Aug 2009, at 16:38, David Nyman wrote:
>
> 2009/8/12 Bruno Marchal :
>
>>> The solution then seems obviously to be to throw one or other of
>>> these
>>> supposed causal principles out, i.e.:
>>>
>>> 1) either it is the case that consciousness simply supervenes on
>>> particular physical
2009/8/12 Bruno Marchal :
> I will not stickle on that point :)
>
> Can we say that?
Sure - why be pointilleux about it?
> Now, is the ONE a person? I still don't know if that make sense (in
> "machine's theology"). Who knows?
I suspect we need to interview the One. Maybe Oprah?
D ;-)
>
> B
Hi,
I'm from Milan.
I'm going to finish my studies in philosophy (of mind) and I'm looking
for some phd in philosophy of mind & in cognitive (neuro)science...or
something that is interdisciplinary. I found some interesting phd in
Italy (at the university of In Milan, in Siena, in Turin & in Tren
On 11 Aug 2009, at 22:24, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
>
>
>> Well, A^B is the set of functions from B to A. By definition of set
>> exponentiation.
>
> I'd just like to point out that Bruno in his previous post in the
> seven
> step serii made a small typo
>
> "A^B - the set of all functions from A t
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 2009/8/12 Colin Hales :
>
>> My motivation to kill COMP is purely aimed at bring a halt to the delusion
>> of the AGI community that Turing-computing will ever create a mind. They are
>> throwing away $millions based on a false belief. Their expectations need to
>> be
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Colin,
>
> We agree on the conclusion. We disagree on vocabulary, and on the
> validity of your reasoning.
>
> Let us call I-comp the usual indexical mechanism discussed in this
> list (comp).
> Let us call m-comp the thesis that there is a primitive "natural
> world", a
10 matches
Mail list logo
