On 22 Dec 2011, at 19:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/22/2011 3:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Quantum computing is a specific process of exploiting entangled
states. I do not mean that, and think it unlikely that nature works
that way (contra Penrose). Supervenience over multiple MW branches
does not
On 22 Dec 2011, at 23:27, Joseph Knight wrote:
Hello everyone and everything,
I have pompously made my own thread for this, even though we have
another MGA thread going, because the other one (sigh, I created
that one too) seems to have split into at least two different
discussions, b
On 22 Dec 2011, at 23:48, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 03:53:09PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
When I say that the movie is thinking, it is in the frame of both
comp *and* the physical supervenience thesis, and it is to get the
reductio ad absurdum.
OK - but how does super
On 23 Dec 2011, at 00:19, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:06:54PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Dec 2011, at 00:30, Russell Standish wrote:
Maybe you haven't explained the 323 principle properly. My
understanding was that if a program did not need register 323 in
ord
On Dec 22, 10:26 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 12/22/2011 7:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 22, 7:13 pm, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >> This is because of the modularity of our brains:
> >> Different sections of the brain perform specific functions. Some neurons
> >> may serve on
On Dec 22, 10:35 pm, Jason Resch wrote:
> Their experiment consisted of people clicking on the image of a word spoken
> aloud. They found it took people longer for similar sounding words, such
> as when present with an image of candy and candle. From this, they
> concluded:
>
> "In thinking of c
On 23 Dec 2011, at 06:18, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 04:27:28PM -0600, Joseph Knight wrote:
Regarding Maudlin’s argument: Russell has recently stated that
Maudlin’s
argument doesn’t work in a multiverse, and that consciousness is
thus a
multiverse phenomenon. I disag
On Dec 22, 11:21 pm, Joseph Knight wrote:
> Craig, no one would ever claim that the brain is a perfectly discrete
> system (at the neuronal level at least) such as the sort represented in
> Boolean models. But continuous neural networks can still be modeled (with
> varying degrees of error) by dis
On 12/23/2011 6:00 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:26 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/22/2011 7:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Dec 22, 7:13 pm, Jason Reschwrote:
This is because of the modularity of our brains:
Different sections of the brain perform specific functions. Some
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 22 Dec 2011, at 23:27, Joseph Knight wrote:
>
> Hello everyone and everything,
>
>
> I have pompously made my own thread for this, even though we have another
> MGA thread going, because the other one (sigh, I created that one too)
> se
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 04:27:28PM -0600, Joseph Knight wrote:
> >
> >
> > Regarding Maudlin’s argument: Russell has recently stated that Maudlin’s
> > argument doesn’t work in a multiverse, and that consciousness is thus a
> > multiverse
On 12/23/2011 2:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Why? Turing emulability of the physics that supervened on is surely irrelevant.
Unless it plays a role at some level, like you suggest by attributing a physical
activity to something which is not used in a branch, but might be used in another
branch
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 01:39:56PM -0600, Joseph Knight wrote:
> > In the case of dovetailing a region of the Multiverse, it is not the
> > case that consciousness can supervene on a universal dovetailer. If
> > the conscious content differs in some way, the universal dovetailer
> > does not - as i
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 03:30:00PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 23 Dec 2011, at 06:18, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> >
> >In the case of dovetailing a region of the Multiverse, it is not the
> >case that consciousness can supervene on a universal dovetailer.
>
> I guess you mean "on univers
On Dec 22, 7:18 am, alexalex wrote:
> Hello, Everythinglisters!
>
> The below text is a philosophical essay on what qualia may represent.
> I doubt you'll manage to finish reading it (it's kind of long, and
> translated from anoter language), but if you do I'll be happy to hear
> your opinion abou
On Dec 23, 1:46 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> >> All of which is emulable by a digital computer.
> > Emulable to whose judgment?
>
> The judgement of people who have successfully emulated continuous, non-linear
> processes in
> high-dimensional spaces using digital computers.
They have their opinion of
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 11:17:33AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 23 Dec 2011, at 00:19, Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> >Because in the latter case, the "inactive" machinery is not really
> >inactive. It is only inactive in one branch.
>
> If the activity of the piece in another branch plays a
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 12:06:24PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
> On 12/23/2011 2:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>Why? Turing emulability of the physics that supervened on is surely
> >>irrelevant.
> >
> >Unless it plays a role at some level, like you suggest by
> >attributing a physical activity to som
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 11:15:36AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 22 Dec 2011, at 23:48, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 03:53:09PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
> >>When I say that the movie is thinking, it is in the frame of both
> >>comp *and* the physical superveni
On 23 December 2011 23:24, Russell Standish wrote:
> The argument cannot extend to an apparatus made of extended
> multiversal objects, as the "inactive" parts are no longer
> inactive. But it does require the supervenience to be extended across
> multiple multiverse branches in a way that hasn't
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 01:06:44AM +, David Nyman wrote:
> On 23 December 2011 23:24, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> > The argument cannot extend to an apparatus made of extended
> > multiversal objects, as the "inactive" parts are no longer
> > inactive. But it does require the supervenience to
>On 24 dec., 00:37, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>Thanks for taking the time to read about my analogy!
Sure, thanks for reading my responses!
>
>> On Dec 22, 7:18 am, alexalex wrote:
>>
>> > Hello, Everythinglisters!
>>
>> > The below text is a philosophical essay on what qualia may represent.
>> >
Hi,
Forgive my .o2$ but is this not a discussion of the non-bijection
of that representations and referents? We forget that what we think of
as real and objective comes to use from the filter of our senses,
reality is not presented raw to us.
Onward!
Stephen
On 12/23/2011 10:32 PM, Cra
23 matches
Mail list logo
