On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:41 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/2/2013 8:50 PM, Dennis Ochei wrote:
No matter how complex a system is, it can never be complex enough to contain
itself, and is therefore unable to perceive itself directly as a
deterministic process. Only in the
this is in line with schopenhauer's views. he was essentially a
buddhist. you can want not to want, in which case you cannot will yourself
to want to want. you can have and act upon the desire to change your
desires, but that doesn't constitute willing what you want. instead, this
constitutes just
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:24 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very
powerful computer precisely predict my
future behaviour?
Yes, but only if the computer
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
this is in line with schopenhauer's views. he was essentially a buddhist.
you can want not to want, in which case you cannot will yourself to want to
want. you can have and act upon the desire to change your desires,
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
I liked it until they were on earth. The human's dialogue is too preachy and
cheesy, the preceding parts of the cartoon were fun and more subtle i
suppose. I would have probably ended it after God 2 died
Agreed. Well,
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Likewise the self-driving cars on earth
Yes.
and consciousness on the brain.
Maybe :)
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Richard Ruquist
On 9/3/2013 3:48 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:24 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very
powerful computer precisely predict my
future
On 9/3/2013 3:54 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Dennis Ocheido.infinit...@gmail.com wrote:
this is in line with schopenhauer's views. he was essentially a buddhist.
you can want not to want, in which case you cannot will yourself to want to
want. you can have and act
Yes, that's also my favorite way of thinking about this, you are
precisely that what you experience at any one time, and that may well
include memories of the past.
What was discussed earlier in this thread about decoherence, is only
revelevant to explaining why you don't get macroscopic
I think 't Hooft has argued in some other paper that one should
consider the set of possible initial states that the early universe
could have been in, which then restricts the freedom of observers
today. So, he actually uses this issue to argue why superdeterminsim
isn't all that strange, but
On 9/3/2013 6:14 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Yes, that's also my favorite way of thinking about this, you are precisely that what you
experience at any one time, and that may well include memories of the past.
What was discussed earlier in this thread about decoherence, is only revelevant to
2013/9/3 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 9/3/2013 6:14 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Yes, that's also my favorite way of thinking about this, you are
precisely that what you experience at any one time, and that may well
include memories of the past.
What was discussed earlier in this thread
On 23 Aug 2013, at 01:21, Ian Mclean wrote:
Details on my blog, Radical Computing.
The summary is this, we can argue that a Theory of Everything is
characterized by either syntactic, negation, or deductive
completeness or universal closure. A theory of everything (ToE) or
final theory
Determinism is not only falsifiable it has been falsified.John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
On 9/3/2013 9:02 AM, John Clark wrote:
Determinism is not only falsifiable it has been falsified.
John K Clark
Did you read the t'Hooft paper?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
If not then my actions could not be predicted because they happened for
no reason, they were random.
Or because of the halting problem,
The halting problem involves predictability not determinism; a Turing
Machine is 100%
On 02 Sep 2013, at 17:24, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very
powerful computer precisely predict my
future behaviour?
Yes, but only if the computer didn't tell me what it
Since MWI is deterministic, and MWI has not beean falsfied... your
statement is wrong.
Quentin
2013/9/3 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
Determinism is not only falsifiable it has been falsified. John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
indeed free does not add much to the will, except to emphasize a local
freedom degrees spectrum.
It doesn't even do that. Will is the set of things I want to do, but some
of those things may not be physically possible,
I think your position is ridiculous. Evolution has clearly invested a lot of
energy into free will, self-awareness, and other qualia that
characterize conscious existence. There is evidence of analogous inner
mental existence in some other more advanced species on earth - am referring
to other
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 2:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very
powerful computer precisely predict my
future behaviour?
Yes, but only if the computer didn't tell me what it predicted
beforehand, because then the
Hi Richard,
I appreciate.
That moving was quite a work. It is not even finished, but at least I
am reconnected.
There is still no quantum algorithm for finding a needle in an
haystack with 0 needle, although we might try with with quantum field
(annihilation and creation superposition),
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:
I think your position is ridiculous. Evolution has clearly invested a lot
of energy into “free will”
Can not comment, don't know what ASCII sequence free will means.
“self-awareness”, and other qualia that
Hi Chris - I also do not KNOW whether or not I really do have free will.
But if I do not have free will evolution has seen fit to evolve a very
expensive - in evolutionary terms - illusion of free will in me (it must
consume a lot of neural activity in order to develop the illusion in the
first
On Monday, September 2, 2013 11:50:34 PM UTC-4, Dennis Ochei wrote:
Hi Craig,
I've been following the pattern of thought you've be exhibiting this
entire thread, trying to understand why you believe in such a strange way.
I would not say that I believe. I have a set of hypotheses which I
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 9/3/2013 9:27 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Evolution did not go through all
On 9/3/2013 9:27 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Evolution did not go through all the trouble and to expend all the energy our species
expends on creating this sensation within ourselves -- whether it is actually real or an
elaborate (and evolutionarily costly adaptation) to carefully create this
What specifically do you claim that I am ignorant about?
You misunderstood my intentions. I'm not trying to insult you or say that
you are lacking knowledge. I'm saying that the appearance of free will and
qualia can be explained in terms of ignorance of a system to the full
details of its
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Is MWI falsifiable?
On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 12:22:29 PM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Since MWI is deterministic, and MWI has not beean falsfied... your
statement is wrong.
Quentin
2013/9/3 John Clark johnk...@gmail.com javascript:
Determinism is not only falsifiable it has been
On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 3:12:17 PM UTC-4, Dennis Ochei wrote:
What specifically do you claim that I am ignorant about?
You misunderstood my intentions. I'm not trying to insult you or say that
you are lacking knowledge.
That wasn't clear in your wording: In all cases it seems to
Of course it didn't. In order to avoid the impression of free will
evolution would have had to provide us with conscious perception of the
working of our brain. This would not only have been expensive in
biological resources and totally unnecessary to our survival,
I want to add that this
On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 12:41:09 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/2/2013 8:50 PM, Dennis Ochei wrote:
No matter how complex a system is, it can never be complex enough to
contain itself, and is therefore unable to perceive itself directly as a
deterministic process. Only in the
It's a sleight of hand because it assumes a single self on a single level
which does the wanting and the willing and the discerning between the two.
On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 6:54:46 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Dennis Ochei
Telmo and Brent,
The Humean quote sums it up nicely. You can think of a human as a
collection of desires and a reasoning process that arbitrates between and
attempts to realize them. In the process of reasoning, one might bring
about new desires, but reasoning is always employed by desires one
Desire is inherently illogical.
Which is precisely why no appearance of free will or qualia can be
generated quantitatively. Logic is a lowest common denominator of sense. It
is sense attempting to negate itself to the extent that it can. It's a
skeletal generalization of sense-like tropes.
On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 3:42:53 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/3/2013 12:32 PM, Dennis Ochei wrote:
Telmo and Brent,
The Humean quote sums it up nicely. You can think of a human as a
collection of desires
and a reasoning process that arbitrates between and attempts to realize
On 9/3/2013 10:54 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
*From:* meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:43 AM
*Subject:* Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
On 9/3/2013 9:27 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Evolution did not go
From: Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
Of course it didn't. In order to avoid the
By the way the brain produces high fidelity illusions for us most of our waking
lives. For example the way we perceive our sight is very different from the
intermittent stream of neural signals that begin their journey from our
retinas. Did you know that every time you shift your eyes from one
On 9/3/2013 3:43 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
By the way the brain produces high fidelity illusions for us most of our waking lives.
For example the way we perceive our sight is very different from the intermittent stream
of neural signals that begin their journey from our retinas. Did you know
Craig,
What UV looks like will depend on how it is transduced into the nervous
system. I could add a new opsin into your blue cones and it would appear to
be a shade of blue. Or, I could achieve the transduction in such a way that
UV doesn't confuse with blue. In which case UV will look different
On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 8:57:13 PM UTC-4, Dennis Ochei wrote:
Craig,
What UV looks like will depend on how it is transduced into the nervous
system. I could add a new opsin into your blue cones and it would appear to
be a shade of blue.
Sure, we can look at an infra-red camera
1) rationality (logic) in this case is to mean founded on justified
principles. This is inherently a normative judgment. the principles that
govern a deterministic system needn't appeal to our psychology as
justified, this is what i mean by determined doesn't mean logical. none of
my desires seem
44 matches
Mail list logo