Maybe just abuse a different substance to the one you are currently abusing.
Mental diarrhoea seems to be the most unpleasant side-effecvt of whatever you
are currently on.
Kim Jones
On 26 Oct 2013, at 2:37 am, Stephen Lin stephenw...@gmail.com wrote:
Wisdom is the art of coming up with
On Friday, October 25, 2013 7:09:47 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
On 26 October 2013 06:23, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
The argument against comp is not one of impossibility, but of empirical
failure. Sure, numbers could do this or that, but our experience does not
On 25 Oct 2013, at 19:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 25, 2013 10:11:04 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Oct 2013, at 18:53, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:16:55 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Oct 2013, at 20:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On 25 Oct 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/25/2013 3:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Now take the game of go: human beings can still easily beat machines,
even the most powerful computer currently available. Go is much more
combinatorially explosive than chess, so it breaks the search tree
On 25 Oct 2013, at 20:15, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Hehe...
Spam, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder and I would
say that,
much like porn, it is impossible to define when or what it is
exactly, but
we do know it when we see it. One could say -- in communication
theory --
On 25 Oct 2013, at 17:30, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Do you think that [you] die in a self-duplication experience?
^^^
We've been through this, it depends on who the hell you is. Is
you
On 25 Oct 2013, at 18:08, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Be consistent, reject MWI, or ask *the same question* about the
probability of *you* (who is you ? pinocchio maybe ?)
In the MWI John Clark doesn't have to worry about
On 25 Oct 2013, at 18:24, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
We have already agree that you concerns the guy(s) who will
remember having been in Helsinki.
Fine, then obviously You will survive and equally obvious you
will
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:36:59 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Oct 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/25/2013 3:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Now take the game of go: human beings can still easily beat machines,
even the most powerful computer currently available. Go is
On 25 Oct 2013, at 22:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/25/2013 9:08 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Be consistent, reject MWI, or ask *the same question* about the
probability of *you* (who is you ? pinocchio maybe ?)
In the
On 25 Oct 2013, at 23:33, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 10/25/2013 9:08 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Be consistent, reject MWI, or ask *the same question*
On 26 Oct 2013, at 10:41, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:36:59 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Oct 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/25/2013 3:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Now take the game of go: human beings can still easily beat
machines,
even the most
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:30:11 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Oct 2013, at 19:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 25, 2013 10:11:04 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Oct 2013, at 18:53, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:16:55 AM UTC-4,
Couldn't there just be a routine that traps the error of believing they are
intelligent?
In parallel to Bruno's reply, one problem I see with naif AI is one
that you may sympathise with: it is mostly built with symbols that are
directly imported from humans. So if there is some
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 5:18:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Oct 2013, at 10:41, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:36:59 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Oct 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/25/2013 3:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Now
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 5:29:46 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
Couldn't there just be a routine that traps the error of believing they
are
intelligent?
In parallel to Bruno's reply, one problem I see with naif AI is one
that you may sympathise with: it is mostly built with
On 26 Oct 2013, at 11:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:30:11 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Oct 2013, at 19:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 25, 2013 10:11:04 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Oct 2013, at 18:53, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On 26 Oct 2013, at 11:54, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 5:18:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Oct 2013, at 10:41, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:36:59 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Oct 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:
On
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 5:29:46 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
Couldn't there just be a routine that traps the error of believing they
are
intelligent?
In parallel to Bruno's reply, one problem I see
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, you could always reciprocate Quentin's courtesy and [...]
Courtesy? This is the fellow who said:
Your agenda is not to try to comprehend something, it is just to bash
someone with no reason except
John,
I came across this today, which you might find of interest:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032v1.pdf
In particular section 3 goes to great pains to describe the importance of
the first person / third person distinction. From the paper:
A. “It doesn’t explain why we perceive
Brent,
Section 3b of ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032v1.pdf ) seems to also
answer some of the questions you posed recently regarding superposition in
MWI:
B. “It doesn’t explain why we don’t perceive weird
superpositions”
That’s right! The Everett postulate doesn’t! Since the
state
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Do you think that [you] die in a self-duplication experience?
^^^
We've been through this, it depends on who the hell you is. Is
you the guy who remembers being John Clark
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
Unlike you, I fortunately do not have the time to dig up your ad hominems.
Well, I sure didn't have to dig very far to find your ad hominems! In just
one short post you say: I'm a bigot. I'm a
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 6:27:40 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Oct 2013, at 11:54, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 5:18:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Oct 2013, at 10:41, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:36:59 AM UTC-4,
Yes it's me... you're the one who is bragging for **years** about useless
confusion that only exists in your mind.
Quentin
2013/10/26 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, you could always
2013/10/26 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, you could always reciprocate Quentin's courtesy and [...]
Courtesy? This is the fellow who said:
Your agenda is not to try to comprehend something,
On 10/26/2013 1:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Oct 2013, at 23:33, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
...
It is:
3) Bruno has yet to develop the mathematical tools to do practical computations.
Not at all. That would be the case if the goal was doing physics, but the goal was only
to formulate
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 6:34:04 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 5:29:46 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
Couldn't there just be a routine that traps the
On 26 Oct 2013, at 19:27, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Do you think that [you] die in a self-duplication experience?
^^^
We've been through this, it depends on who the hell you is.
Is you
On 10/26/2013 10:21 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Brent,
Section 3b of ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9709032v1.pdf ) seems to also answer some
of the questions you posed recently regarding superposition in MWI:
B. “It doesn’t explain why we don’t perceive weird
superpositions”
That’s right! The
On 26 October 2013 20:01, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, October 25, 2013 7:09:47 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
On 26 October 2013 06:23, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
The argument against comp is not one of impossibility, but of empirical
failure. Sure, numbers
On 27 October 2013 13:25, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Build your non-comp theory. Comp implies the consistency (possibility) of
such theory.
I wish I had time to read all the above, but for now at least the bottom
line seems to be here!
--
You received this message because
33 matches
Mail list logo
