On 9/25/2012 12:05 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/24/2012 8:57 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 11:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/24/2012 8:02 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren meekerdb :
On 9/24/2012 9:28 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 12:02 PM, John Clark wrote:
Thus the moon do
On 9/25/2012 12:25 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren meekerdb :
On 9/24/2012 8:57 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 11:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/24/2012 8:02 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren meekerdb :
On 9/24/2012 9:28 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 12:02 PM, John C
On 9/24/2012 9:25 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren meekerdb :
On 9/24/2012 8:57 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 11:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/24/2012 8:02 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren meekerdb :
On 9/24/2012 9:28 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 12:02 PM, John Cl
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Jason Resch
> wrote:
>
> > Pain is anything but epiphenomenal. The fact that someone is able to
> talk about it rules out it being an epiphenomenon.
>
> The behaviour - talking about the pain - could
On 23 Sep 2012, at 18:32, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> We have very often dismissed emotion
Nothing mysterious about emotion, its just a condition that
predisposes a computer or a human to behave in one way rather than
another.
That is con
On 23 Sep 2012, at 18:33, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 23.09.2012 16:51 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 Sep 2012, at 09:31, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 22.09.2012 22:49 meekerdb said the following:
...
In the past, Bruno has said that a machine that understands
transfinite induction wi
On 23 Sep 2012, at 20:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:28:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Sep 2012, at 15:05, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
>
>
> Phenomena are the how physical processes appear to our senses.
> So they are appearances, not the pro
Hi Bruno Marchal
Potential definitions :
To Exist = to have objective being, to physically be, to be within spacetime,
having spacial location and extension at time t - a thing such as a brain or
object
To Inhere = to have subjective being, to mentally or nonphysically
Hi Bruno Marchal
But R^3 is not extended in spacetime, is not at location r at time t
and isn't a physical but a mental object
I would say rather that R^3 inheres.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/24/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving
Hi Bruno Marchal
Numbers are not in spacetime, that is, are not at location r at time t.
So they are ideas, they are not physical. To be physical you
have to have a specific location at a specific time. This is not
my view, it is that of Descartes.
The same with arithmetic. Numbers and arithmet
Hi Bruno Marchal
I believe that there are at least three attributes of numbers:
1) Are they true or false as in a numerical equation ? Does 2+ 2 = 4 ? True.
2) Do they physically exist or do they mentally inhere ? They inhere. You
can't touch them.
3) Are they real or not ? Numbers are alw
Hi Stephen,
Any idea about whatever is outside of the mind (noumena, thing it itself
as Kant named it)before it is experienced as phenomena is and will
remain speculative forever. By definition. But this does not prohibit our
speculations...
2012/9/23 Stephen P. King
> On 9/23/2012 6:18
The unavoidable speculative nature of neumena makes existence uncertain to
the most deep level. All we have is the phenomena, that are mental. So
certainty of existence has meaning within an space of shared conscience of
believers that have, by various mental processes, "certainty" of existence
of
Hi Craig Weinberg
In my suggested definitions,
To exist = to physically be in spacetime (at location r at time t).
To inhere = to be otherwise (to be mental, outside of spacetime,
not at (r,t)).
Anything physical must be at a location r at time t.
It is acting at f(r,t).
Without time, spac
Hi Bruno,
With components I mean a neutral enumeration of entities. perhaps
lebnitzian monads would be more appropriate.
Besides numbers + and * I think that is necessary machines or any kind of
instruction set + an execution unit? . It isn't?
2012/9/23 Bruno Marchal
>
> On 23 Sep 2012, at 12
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
Phenomenal means physical objects as perceived by the senses.
Noumenal means the physical processes or objects themselves.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/24/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content
Hi John Clark
Emotions are strong feelings that are set off, not by
our senses primarily but when our will to do something is
blocked. But they are still feelings and can be handled as such,
except that they are often more strongly linked to muscular and bodily
reactions.
Animal studies would
On 9/24/2012 6:46 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Any idea about whatever is outside of the mind (noumena, thing it
itself as Kant named it)before it is experienced as phenomena is
and will remain speculative forever. By definition. But this does not
prohibit our speculations...
Hi John Clark
I believe that the will in a monad is a desire to do something
which would show up as an appetite. The desired action is then seen
and effected by the supreme monad.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/24/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
Hi John Mikes
At the time I thought to call the nonphysical realm life,
but since decided to use a less red flag term, that
the nonphysical domain inheres, while the physical realm exists.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/24/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woo
Hi
Somebody on this list asked whether I thought the physical world
to be real while the nonphysical isn't, but my email program seems to
have eaten his email.
The answer is that it all depends on how you look at the world.
Idealists believe that only ideas are real, while the material worl
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
You need a self or observer to be conscious, and computers
have no self. So they can't be conscious.
Consciousness = a subject looking at, or aware of, an object.
Computers have no subject.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/24/2012
"Forever is a long time, especia
Hi Stephen P. King
What's in a name ?
If you have a better word for what I have been calling
physical existence, please say it.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/24/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
-
Hi Stephen P. King
I have since abandoned the term living for the term "to inhere"
to apply to nonphysical existence such as thoughts or ideas or numbers.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/24/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the foll
Hi Stephen P. King
I have trouble conceiving an isomorphism (or anything comparative) between
something that is there and something that is not. The something
that is not there is not the absence of the thing that was,
since it has no shape, no location, and cannot be found by a physical
search.
Hi Stephen P. King
That's what Peirce gave as a pragmatic definition of truth,
something that we would all agree to, given time enough.
But fiction can be true (as "true fiction", a narrative woven about
actual events) or not be true. Arithmetic isn't, it's either
always true or always fals
On 9/24/2012 8:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
What's in a name ?
If you have a better word for what I have been calling
physical existence, please say it.
"Actuality".
--
Onward!
Stephen
http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
--
You received this me
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stathis Papaioannou
>
> You need a self or observer to be conscious, and computers
> have no self. So they can't be conscious.
>
> Consciousness = a subject looking at, or aware of, an object.
>
> Computers have no subject.
So where do y
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
You'll have to ask Descartes.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/24/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-24, 02:44:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
Try to define consciousness. If you can't,
how do you know that a computer is conscious ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/24/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stathis Pap
Hi Stephen P. King
At least as far as the physical world goes,
the grand project of science is to find out what the noumena are.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/24/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
Fr
On 24 Sep 2012, at 12:26, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Potential definitions :
To Exist = to have objective being, to physically be, to be within
spacetime, having spacial location and extension at time t - a thing
such as a brain or object
But "exists" has simple meaning, whe
On 24 Sep 2012, at 12:32, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
But R^3 is not extended in spacetime, is not at location r at time t
and isn't a physical but a mental object
What makes you sure that the "physical" is not a mental object?
I would say rather that R^3 inheres.
Not sure th
Hi Stephen P. King
Yes, "actual" is much better than "exist". Good.
I suppose I could say I have actual thoughts, but
that's I believe a misnaming.
There is a similar or even identical idea that goes back Aristotle.
en穞el積穋hy (n-tl-k)
n. pl. en穞el積穋hies
1. In the philosophy of Aristotle, t
On 9/24/2012 8:12 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
I have trouble conceiving an isomorphism (or anything comparative) between
something that is there and something that is not. The something
that is not there is not the absence of the thing that was,
since it has no shape, no location,
On 9/24/2012 9:06 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Yes, "actual" is much better than "exist". Good.
I suppose I could say I have actual thoughts, but
that's I believe a misnaming.
There is a similar or even identical idea that goes back Aristotle.
entelechy (n-tl-k)
n. pl. entele
On 24 Sep 2012, at 12:39, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Numbers are not in spacetime, that is, are not at location r at time
t.
So they are ideas,
God's ideas? Then I am OK. The comp God is arithmetical truth, so this
works.
they are not physical.
OK.
To be physical you
Hi Bruno Marchal
Being a pragmatist (and an engineer), I believe what works or makes the best
sense.
I am basically trying to understand the relationship between
Platonism and modern science. So it's not either/or, its both/and.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/24/2012
"Forever is a long t
On 24 Sep 2012, at 13:03, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Hi Bruno,
With components I mean a neutral enumeration of entities. perhaps
lebnitzian monads would be more appropriate.
Besides numbers + and * I think that is necessary machines or any
kind of instruction set + an execution unit? . It
On 24 Sep 2012, at 14:02, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
You need a self or observer to be conscious, and computers
have no self. So they can't be conscious.
Few lines of instructions gives a self to computer. I told you that
"self" is what computer science explains the best.
Hi Bruno Marchal
Good point. Some say that matter is ultimately mental. H. But as far as I
know,
it still seems to have dimensions at least down to the fundamental particle
level.
And Heisenberg seems to forbid us from having much success at smaller sizes.
I guess I should define the ph
Hi meekerdb
The computer can mechanically prove something,
but it cannot know that it did so. It cannot
sit back with a beer and muse over how smart it is.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/24/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the foll
Hi Bruno Marchal
R^3 has no dimensions, and does not exist in spacetime.
So instead of calling it actual, I say that it inheres (when read or thought).
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/24/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the follo
Hi Bruno Marchal
God's ideas is fine. The numbers and arithmetic etc. can inhere in
some mind. The numbers are (idealistically) real, as I think
all arithmetic must be. For it is true whether known or
not. At least as you stay with common numbers and arithmetic.
Pretty sure.
Roger Cloug
On 24 Sep 2012, at 14:51, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
Try to define consciousness. If you can't,
how do you know that a computer is conscious ?
Try to define consciousness. If you can't
how do you know that a computer is not conscious?
Bruno
Roger Clough, rclo...@ver
Hi Bruno Marchal
By self I mean conscious self. Computers
are not conscious because codes can describe,
but they can't perceive. Perception requires a
live viewer or self.
I had no racial intentions in mind when I spoke
of not having a subject, and I find it difficult to
see how you could imagi
Hi Bruno Marchal
A computer being not conscious ? All computer operations
(to my mind,probably not yours) are actual (in spacetime).
But consciousness is an inherent (mental, not in spacetime)
activity.
Cs = subject + object
A computer has no inherent realms, no conscious self or observer.
Hi Stephen P. King
OK, I can understand that at least in princiople. I recall a statement
by the famous Maharishi Yogi from way back:
"Knowledge is structured in consciousness."
I had forgotten the "structured" part.
To my mind at least, that explains why nature
shows structure as well. A p
On 24 Sep 2012, at 15:11, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Being a pragmatist (and an engineer), I believe what works or makes
the best sense.
I am basically trying to understand the relationship between
Platonism and modern science. So it's not either/or, its both/and.
As an extreme
On 9/24/2012 9:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
The computer can mechanically prove something,
but it cannot know that it did so. It cannot
sit back with a beer and muse over how smart it is.
Hi Roger,
What you are considering that a computer does not have is the
ability to model
On 9/24/2012 9:46 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
God's ideas is fine. The numbers and arithmetic etc. can inhere in
some mind. The numbers are (idealistically) real, as I think
all arithmetic must be. For it is true whether known or
not. At least as you stay with common numbers and arithmetic.
Pretty
On 24 Sep 2012, at 16:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 9:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
The computer can mechanically prove something,
but it cannot know that it did so. It cannot
sit back with a beer and muse over how smart it is.
Hi Roger,
What you are considering that
On 9/24/2012 9:59 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
By self I mean conscious self. Computers
are not conscious because codes can describe,
but they can't perceive. Perception requires a
live viewer or self.
I had no racial intentions in mind when I spoke
of not having a subject, and I find it difficult t
On 24 Sep 2012, at 16:13, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
A computer being not conscious ? All computer operations
(to my mind,probably not yours) are actual (in spacetime).
But consciousness is an inherent (mental, not in spacetime)
activity.
All right, in that sense a computer cannot
On 9/24/2012 10:13 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
A computer being not conscious ? All computer operations
(to my mind,probably not yours) are actual (in spacetime).
But consciousness is an inherent (mental, not in spacetime)
activity.
Cs = subject + object
A computer has no inherent realms, no consc
On 9/24/2012 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Sep 2012, at 16:13, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
A computer being not conscious ? All computer operations
(to my mind,probably not yours) are actual (in spacetime).
But consciousness is an inherent (mental, not in spacetime)
activity.
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> was the Email message that you sent to the Everything list on Sunday
>> Sep 23, 2012 at 9:13 AM on the east coast of the USA with the title
>> "Re:Zombieopolis Thought Experiment" unique?
>>
>
> > My experience of sending it was unique. The experienc
"Real" is sense modalities comparing each other. There is no real, only
'more real than'. One brief moment of significance can be more real than an
entire lifetime of sleepwalking through life.
On Monday, September 24, 2012 7:59:51 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Somebody on this list as
On Monday, September 24, 2012 5:13:11 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 23 Sep 2012, at 20:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, September 23, 2012 11:28:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> > On 23 Sep 2012, at 15:05, Roger Clough wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
On 9/24/2012 2:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Sep 2012, at 18:33, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 23.09.2012 16:51 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 Sep 2012, at 09:31, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 22.09.2012 22:49 meekerdb said the following:
...
In the past, Bruno has said that a machi
On 9/24/2012 12:02 PM, John Clark wrote:
Thus the moon does not exist when you are not looking at it.
Hi John,
I expected better from you! This quip is based on the premise that
"you" are the only observer involved. Such nonsense! Considering that
there are a HUGE number of observers of t
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> >> Thus the moon does not exist when you are not looking at it.
>>
>
>
> I expected better from you! This quip is based on the premise that
> "you" are the only observer involved. Such nonsense! Considering that there
> are a HUGE num
On 9/24/2012 12:59 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Stephen P. King
mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
>> Thus the moon does not exist when you are not looking at it.
> I expected better from you! This quip is based on the premise
that "you" are the
Hi John
This crater has been observed, so there are a current observed phenomenon
about this crater: our memory of it.
I observe that others had observed it, and I trust these people. This
indirect account is also an "observation" . I believe because I trust these
people and trust science. But th
Hi Bruno
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
>
>
> On 13 Sep 2012, at 22:04, Brian Tenneson wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>>
>> You use B as a predicate symbol for "belief" I think.
>>
>
> I use for the modal unspecified box, in some context (in place of the more
> common "[
On Monday, September 24, 2012 12:02:16 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >> was the Email message that you sent to the Everything list on Sunday
>>> Sep 23, 2012 at 9:13 AM on the east coast of the USA with the title
>>> "Re:Zombieopolis Thought Ex
On 9/24/2012 9:28 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 12:02 PM, John Clark wrote:
Thus the moon does not exist when you are not looking at it.
Hi John,
I expected better from you! This quip is based on the premise that "you" are the
only observer involved. Such nonsense! Considering t
Citeren meekerdb :
On 9/24/2012 9:28 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 12:02 PM, John Clark wrote:
Thus the moon does not exist when you are not looking at it.
Hi John,
I expected better from you! This quip is based on the premise
that "you" are the only observer involved. Such no
Citeren "Stephen P. King" :
On 9/24/2012 12:02 PM, John Clark wrote:
Thus the moon does not exist when you are not looking at it.
Hi John,
I expected better from you! This quip is based on the premise that
"you" are the only observer involved. Such nonsense! Considering that
there are a
On 9/24/2012 8:02 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren meekerdb :
On 9/24/2012 9:28 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 12:02 PM, John Clark wrote:
Thus the moon does not exist when you are not looking at it.
Hi John,
I expected better from you! This quip is based on the premise that
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
> Pain is anything but epiphenomenal. The fact that someone is able to talk
> about it rules out it being an epiphenomenon.
The behaviour - talking about the pain - could be explained entirely
as a sequence of physical events, without any hi
On 9/24/2012 11:02 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren meekerdb :
On 9/24/2012 9:28 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 12:02 PM, John Clark wrote:
Thus the moon does not exist when you are not looking at it.
Hi John,
I expected better from you! This quip is based on the premise
th
On 9/24/2012 11:04 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren "Stephen P. King" :
On 9/24/2012 12:02 PM, John Clark wrote:
Thus the moon does not exist when you are not looking at it.
Hi John,
I expected better from you! This quip is based on the premise that
"you" are the only observer involve
On 9/24/2012 8:51 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
If I don't observe it, then it doesn't matter who/what else observes something, the
rest of the universe is still a superposition. It doesn't matter whether or not an
interference pattern can be detected.
Saibal
Dear Saibal,
If you are oper
On 9/24/2012 11:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/24/2012 8:02 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren meekerdb :
On 9/24/2012 9:28 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 12:02 PM, John Clark wrote:
Thus the moon does not exist when you are not looking at it.
Hi John,
I expected better from you
On 9/24/2012 8:57 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 11:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/24/2012 8:02 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren meekerdb :
On 9/24/2012 9:28 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 12:02 PM, John Clark wrote:
Thus the moon does not exist when you are not looking at
Citeren meekerdb :
On 9/24/2012 8:02 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren meekerdb :
On 9/24/2012 9:28 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 12:02 PM, John Clark wrote:
Thus the moon does not exist when you are not looking at it.
Hi John,
I expected better from you! This quip is base
Citeren meekerdb :
On 9/24/2012 8:57 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 11:17 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/24/2012 8:02 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren meekerdb :
On 9/24/2012 9:28 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/24/2012 12:02 PM, John Clark wrote:
Thus the moon does not exist when y
On 9/24/2012 11:55 PM, meekerdb wrote:
Or it's Chris Fuch's instrumental Bayesianism which regards QM as just
a way of representing one's knowledge of systems.
If Chris can extract Bell's theorem from the Bayesian statistics, that
would be amazing! I consider QM to be a theory of observers, I
79 matches
Mail list logo
