On 24.10.2012 20:31 meekerdb said the following:
On 10/24/2012 5:31 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/abstract
Comments?
Woo-woo. Small effect sizes which are *statistically* significant
are indicative of bias errors. I'd
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 10/27/2012 12:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Stephen,
I agree that All of this discussion is below the level of conscious
self-awareness, but prefer to think of raw perception as
distinguishing what can be from
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 8:08 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Stathis:
IMO you left out one difference in equating computer and human: the
programmed comp. cannot exceed its hardwre - given content while
(SOMEHOW???) a human mind receives additional information from parts
'unknown'
Putnam on computationalism (a-f) . This starts at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1v=izqKc1SIFJQfeature=endscreen
If the next video in the lecture does not appear on the screen,
you can search for it in the search box. For example, if
part f does not appear, put Putnam on computationalism (f)
Hi Richard Ruquist
Yes, the strings themselves are extended, but
theoretical strings (string theory itself) are not.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/27/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard
On 26 Oct 2012, at 01:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 5:16:47 PM UTC-4, smi...@zonnet.nl
wrote:
Citeren Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:58:33 PM UTC-4, smi...@zonnet.nl
wrote:
You can identify a particular qualia with
On 26 Oct 2012, at 01:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:08:43 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
In order for a computer or comp to simulate an experience
it must be able to generate qualia. That is the plural of
qua锟�e/'kw锟�e/
Noun:
A quality or property as perceived or
On 26 Oct 2012, at 13:01, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Alberto G. Corona
Instead of trying to understand these phenomena under
the materialist function of mind (what they are) it
is IMHO more useful to understand them by what they
do-- create the subjective or mental correlates to
the physical
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 8:08:01 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Oct 2012, at 01:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 5:16:47 PM UTC-4, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:58:33 PM
On 26 Oct 2012, at 13:51, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
Quanta do exist, and can be measured,
but by definition they can only be experienced as qualia,
(another word for experience) which can't be measured.
Quanta are within spacetime, qualia are beyond spacetime.
Not with comp (in the
On 26 Oct 2012, at 14:00, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Brent,
What happens -- or is it even possible -- to
collapse the dimensions down to one (which I
conjecture might be time), or zero (Platonia or mind).
Yes it is more zero, or zero^zero (one). In my favorite working theory.
Bruno
Roger
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 6:28:14 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 8:08 AM, John Mikes jam...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Stathis:
IMO you left out one difference in equating computer and human: the
programmed comp. cannot exceed its hardwre - given content
On 26 Oct 2012, at 14:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:01:34 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.com wrote:
We are atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, and organisms. Whatever
we do is
what the laws of physics
On 26 Oct 2012, at 14:44, Roger Clough wrote:
Dear Bruno and Alberto,
I agree some what with both of you. As to the idea of a genetic
algorithm can isolate anticipative programs, I think that
anticipation
is the analogue of inertia for computations, as Mach saw inertia. It
is
a
On 26 Oct 2012, at 15:52, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Well Bruno,
If the measure problem (which I take to be the assignment of
probabilities) is intrinsic to Everett's MWI, does that not amount to
negating it?
Why? I think that it is beautifully solved by Gleason theorem, for the
Hilbert space
On 26 Oct 2012, at 15:58, Richard Ruquist wrote:
For Hans,
Topological order: from long-range entangled quantum matter to an
unification of light and electrons
Xiao-Gang Wen
(Submitted on 4 Oct 2012)
In primary school, we were told that there are four states of matter:
solid, liquid, gas,
On 26 Oct 2012, at 20:30, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/26/2012 8:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Dear Bruno and Alberto,
I agree some what with both of you. As to the idea of a genetic
algorithm can isolate anticipative programs, I think that
anticipation
is the analogue of inertia for
On 26 Oct 2012, at 21:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/26/2012 5:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Oct 2012, at 07:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/24/2012 9:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Or what if we don't care? We don't care about slaughtering
cattle, which are pretty smart
as computers go. We
On 26 Oct 2012, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/26/2012 6:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Oh yes, I remember that you did agree once with the 323
principle, but I forget what is your problem with the movie-graph/
step-8, then. If you find the time, I am please if you can
elaborate. I think
On 10/27/2012 10:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Oct 2012, at 20:30, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/26/2012 8:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Dear Bruno and Alberto,
I agree some what with both of you. As to the idea of a genetic
algorithm can isolate anticipative programs, I think that
On 26 Oct 2012, at 21:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/25/2012 10:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Oct 2012, at 20:29, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/24/2012 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Oct 2012, at 06:03, Stephen P. King wrote:
What difference does what they refer to
On Friday, October 26, 2012 11:46:23 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/26/2012 11:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
All of it ultimately has to be grounded in ordinary conscious
experience. Otherwise we have an infinite regress of invisible
homunculi translating crystalline
John,
A fixed universal machine (some hardwired one, like a brain or a
laptop) can emulate a self-modifying universal machine, even one which
modifies itself completely.
Bruno
On 26 Oct 2012, at 23:08, John Mikes wrote:
Stathis:
IMO you left out one difference in equating computer and
Stathis,
do you think Lucy had the same (thinking?) hardware as you have? are you
negating (human and other) development (I evade 'evolution') as e.g. the
famous cases of mutation? Is all that RD a reshuffling of what WAS
already knowable?
Maybe my agnosticism dictates different potentials at
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 9:18:33 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Oct 2012, at 14:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:01:34 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
We are atoms, molecules,
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
How can a human exceed his hardware? Everything he does must be due to
the hardware plus input from the environment, same as the computer,
same as everything else in the universe.
What input from the environment
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 2:38 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Stathis,
do you think Lucy had the same (thinking?) hardware as you have? are you
negating (human and other) development (I evade 'evolution') as e.g. the
famous cases of mutation? Is all that RD a reshuffling of what WAS
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Oct 2012, at 14:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:01:34 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
We are atoms, molecules,
On 27 Oct 2012, at 06:12, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
we know that nobody can answer the question why do I feel to be
the one in Washington and not in Moscow.
Because your eyes are sending signals to your brain of the White
House and
On 27 Oct 2012, at 07:56, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/27/2012 12:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Stephen,
I agree that All of this discussion is below the level of conscious
self-awareness, but prefer to think of raw perception as
distinguishing what can be from what cannot be, as for
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 12:04:48 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
I'm with John Clark on that - if a machine functions intelligently it's
intelligent and it's probably conscious. Nothing magical about it.
It's
On 27 Oct 2012, at 14:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 8:08:01 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Oct 2012, at 01:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 5:16:47 PM UTC-4, smi...@zonnet.nl
wrote:
Citeren Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.comjavascript:;
wrote:
No. What we as humans do is determined by human experiences and human
character, which is not completely ruled externally. We participate
directly. It could only be a small set of rules if those rules
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
People don't have to prove that they aren't machines.
So says you, but a computer might have a very different opinion on the
subject, and I don't think you even have a clear understanding what a
machine is.
it explains why
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 11:47:14 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
How can a human exceed his hardware? Everything he does must be due to
the hardware plus input from the environment, same as the
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 1:41:08 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
People don't have to prove that they aren't machines.
So says you, but a computer might have a very different opinion on the
subject, and I don't
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 1:03:52 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
No. What we as humans do is determined by human experiences and human
character, which is not completely ruled externally. We participate
On 10/27/2012 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Oct 2012, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/26/2012 6:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Oh yes, I remember that you did agree once with the 323 principle, but I forget what
is your problem with the movie-graph/step-8, then. If you find the time, I am
On 10/27/2012 11:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 12:27 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
your eyes are sending signals to your
UH OH! We may have to consider the ethics of our treatment of bacteria next.
Brent
The seafloor is home to a vast electrical network created by bacteria
Annalee Newitz
It sounds a little bit like one of the subplots in Avatar, where we
discover that the moon Pandora possesses a kind of
On Oct 27, 2012, at 2:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/27/2012 11:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 12:27 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
your eyes are sending signals to your
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 05:13:50PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Oh yes, I remember that you did agree once with the 323 principle,
but I forget what is your problem with the movie-graph/step-8, then.
If you find the time, I am please if you can elaborate. I think
Russell too is not yet
On 10/27/2012 1:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Oct 27, 2012, at 2:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/27/2012 11:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 12:27 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
43 matches
Mail list logo