On Sunday, February 16, 2014, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:49:56 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 16 February 2014 01:32, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
No, the copy of the experience has no belief or experience at all. The
On 15 Feb 2014, at 23:17, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:08:07AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 20:47, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 7:12 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
I find cuttlefish fascinating. They are social, relatively
intelligent, can
On 15 Feb 2014, at 18:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/15/2014 5:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And Sam Harris, in his reply to Dan Dennett in their recent debate
on free will, remarks that he's .. begun to doubt whether any
smart person retains the ability to change his mind.
I have another
On 15 Feb 2014, at 18:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/15/2014 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You might keep in mind that astonishing truth (deducible from
Matiyasevitch):
- The polynomial on the reals are not Turing universal (you cannot
simulate an exponential with such polynomials)
- the
On 16 Feb 2014, at 00:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:43:29 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 15 February 2014 18:32, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
You can't copy awareness. Awareness is what is uncopyable, not just
because awareness is special, but
On 15 Feb 2014, at 19:30, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
The 3-1 view is the 3p view on the 1p views, note the plural,
after the duplication.
That is far more convoluted than it need to be, it's really not all
that
On 16 Feb 2014, at 05:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:40:17 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 16 February 2014 01:41, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
To extend your metaphor, in my view, since the characters in a
drama can
build an LCD screen as part of
On 16 Feb 2014, at 06:35, Kim Jones wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 2:06 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2014 10:23:35 PM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote:
On 15 Feb 2014, at 1:09 pm, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/14/2014 4:24 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 15 Feb 2014, at 18:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Isn't quantum mechanics based on the reals?
Yes. Like classical physics. And like, most plausibly the comp-
physics, by the dovetailing on the reals inputs, which might play a
role in the measure stabilization problem. But this has to be
On 15 Feb 2014, at 14:14, David Nyman wrote:
On 15 February 2014 02:45, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
If that is so (and I agree that it is, since I am not a physical
eliminativist) it is still consistent with the physical processes
still being *sufficient* to produce
On 11 Feb 2014, at 2:15 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that if we take the assumptions of comp, then quantum
duplication, hypothetical matter transmitter duplication, and living from day
to day ALL involve the same amount of (or lack of) continuity.
Yes. The way I now
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 12:35:59 AM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 2:06 pm, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2014 10:23:35 PM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote:
On 15 Feb 2014, at 1:09 pm, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:
On
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:29:09 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 00:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:43:29 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 15 February 2014 18:32, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
You can't copy awareness.
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:22:50 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
No, the proper understanding is that gravitation and curved space are
EQUIVALENT. Both are produced by the presence of mass-energy (and stress).
I would say that gravity and curved space are metaphorical
On 16 February 2014 12:45, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Copy and self-copy are different, for machines too, but in the case under
study, this does not entail any observable difference, and if you are
right, it means that the copy doll will be a zombie.
The reproduction of the
On 16 February 2014 03:36, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
The difference between the movie and the conscious entity is that the
movie has meaning to an external observer, while the conscious entity
creates its own observer and hence its own meaning.
Yes, that's what I said. OK,
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:45:13 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:49:56 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 16 February 2014 01:32, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 February 2014 14:06, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If there were some way to copy a fully developed body so that it lived, it
would still not be a copy of the original, but just a new original that
reminds us of the copy from the outside perspective.
Ah, but then you would
On 16 February 2014 09:39, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If the foregoing is to make any sense, we are forced to the view that all
references to such dramatis personae are, in the end, merely a manner of
speaking, and that consequently *all* such gross or macroscopic references
are,
Jesse,
OK, I'm back...
Let me back up a minute and ask you a couple of general questions with
respect to establishing which past clock times of different observers were
simultaneous in p-time
The only clocks in this example are the real actual ages of two twins
1. Do you agree that
On 16 Feb 2014, at 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:29:09 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 00:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:43:29 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 15 February 2014 18:32, Craig Weinberg
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:17 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Einstein couldn't be classed as witless
He claimed atoms were the littlelest
When they did a bit of splittin' em
It scared everybody shitless.
A Quantum Mechanic's vacation
Left his colleagues in dire consternation
On 16 Feb 2014, at 15:32, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 09:39, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If the foregoing is to make any sense, we are forced to the view
that all references to such dramatis personae are, in the end,
merely a manner of speaking, and that consequently
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Feb 2014, at 23:17, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:08:07AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 20:47, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 7:12 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
I
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
A typical observation will be the diary of the guy in W assess that
he is in W, and (perhaps) that he could not have predicted that,
That is incorrect, the Helsinki Man could have successfully predicted
that the Washington
On 16 Feb 2014, at 17:41, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 15 Feb 2014, at 23:17, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:08:07AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 20:47, meekerdb wrote:
Craig,
I agree with your idea in one sense, that actually space and clock time are
just computational relationships between events, specifically the
dimensional aspects of those events, rather than the actual physical
background to events that is usually assumed.
In my book on Reality, I
On 2/15/2014 7:40 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 16 February 2014 01:41, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
To extend your metaphor, in my view, since the characters in a drama can
build an LCD screen as part of the show, but an LCD screen can't build a
show as part of its function,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
A quick video that can shed some light on the inadequacy of bottom-up
models.
--
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
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:12:03 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 14:06, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
If there were some way to copy a fully developed body so that it lived, it
would still not be a copy of the original, but just a new original
John,
You say that You can tell if spacetime is curved or not by observing if
light moves in a straight line or not. and then you say that light does
NOT travel in a straight line in the accelerating elevator example you give.
So, by your terminology, does that mean that the acceleration of
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:58:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:29:09 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 00:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:43:29 PM UTC-5,
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 12:32:35 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Craig,
I agree with your idea in one sense, that actually space and clock time
are just computational relationships between events, specifically the
dimensional aspects of those events, rather than the actual physical
On 2/16/2014 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But of course if you're trying to ascertain the nature of personal identity none of
this matters, it doesn't matter if the predictions were correct or not.
We are not trying to ascertain the nature of personal identity at all. I can be amnesic
on who
On 16 Feb 2014, at 17:46, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
A typical observation will be the diary of the guy in W assess
that he is in W, and (perhaps) that he could not have predicted that,
That is incorrect, the Helsinki Man could have
Craig,
Well first I'm not so optimistic as you that some here don't harbor some
pretty ridiculous ideas including that there was no reality before humans.
Second, there is a view I present in my book that resolves both
perspectives. If we hold the view that everything is just computationally
Craig,
But how can elemental computation arise out of even more primitive
sensory-motive qualities and supervene on an even more primordial
possibility of aesthetic appreciation and intentional participation since
those seem to be human dependent attributes?
Aren't you confusing human mental
Russell,
Just to answer your question below of what evidence for humans each
simulating external reality in their minds, there are vast amounts of
evidence for that in cognitive science. It's not an assumption as you
assert, but something any cognitive scientist would agree with
Cognitive
On 16 Feb 2014, at 19:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2014 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But of course if you're trying to ascertain the nature of personal
identity none of this matters, it doesn't matter if the
predictions were correct or not.
We are not trying to ascertain the nature of
Liz,
Thanks for your interest in my balls Liz!
:-)
Edgar
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 12:14:49 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 15 February 2014 10:07, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz,
If Liz had actually been following my and Jesse's lengthly discussion she
would know
On 16 Feb 2014, at 18:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
A quick video that can shed some light on the inadequacy of bottom-
up models.
Nice video, Craig.
But don't make it into an opportunist argument against comp, as comp
explains why 3p bottom-up
On 16 February 2014 18:10, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But that's the ambiguity I see. When you ask the H-man, Where do you
think you will be? he has to provide some interpretation to the word
you. My immediate, intuitive thought was, I expect to be in both
places. Which depends on
On 16 February 2014 19:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Why not being agnostic, especially that you have admitted not having
studied computer science.
Why being negative on something that you ignore?
Because he understands that comp cannot possibly be true.
David
--
You received
On 16 February 2014 17:48, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, but then you would be faced with the questions posed by the UDA/MWI
arguments, because there would then be two conscious originals who
claimed equal possession of the same history to that point. That is all you
need for
On 16 Feb 2014, at 18:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:58:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:29:09 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 00:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On
On 16 February 2014 17:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't disagree, but I think this formulation leaves meaning as
mysterious and one may ask why consciousness creates meaning. I think
meaning comes from being able to act in the world to realize values. And
it doesn't require
WHAT ARE YOUR ASSUMPTIONS, SCHOOLBOY?
Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL
Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
kmjco...@icloud.com
Mobile: 0450 963 719
Phone: 02 93894239
Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain
On 17
WHAT ARE YOUR ASSUMPTIONS, SCHOOLBOY?
Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL
Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
kmjco...@icloud.com
Mobile: 0450 963 719
Phone: 02 93894239
Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain
On 17
WHAT ARE YOUR ASSUMPTIONS, SCHOOLBOY?
Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL
Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
kmjco...@icloud.com
Mobile: 0450 963 719
Phone: 02 93894239
Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain
On 17
On 16 February 2014 16:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 15:32, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 09:39, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
snip
From thought cannot act on matter we arrive at thought cannot refer to
matter, and well, this is almost
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 10:31:21AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
Just to answer your question below of what evidence for humans each
simulating external reality in their minds, there are vast amounts of
evidence for that in cognitive science. It's not an assumption as you
assert,
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:18:54 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 17:48, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Ah, but then you would be faced with the questions posed by the UDA/MWI
arguments, because there would then be two conscious originals who
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:09:13 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 19:05, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be
javascript:wrote:
Why not being agnostic, especially that you have admitted not having
studied computer science.
Why being negative on something that you ignore?
Russell,
Well, there is overwhelming evidence of many sorts. The very fact that you
and I can even communicate about this issue is one proof, unless you think
I'm just a pesky figment of your imagination!
And of course that can't possibly be true since I was here just fine before
I ever met
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:05:09 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 18:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
A quick video that can shed some light on the inadequacy of bottom-up
models.
Nice video, Craig.
But don't make it into an
When have I ever suggested that? I don't suppose any such thing. I would
however say that you have so far been impervious to reasoned argument with
respect to comp, on the sole apparent premise that your prior
understanding suffices to trump reason itself.
David
On 16 Feb 2014 21:38, Craig
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:23:32 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Craig,
But how can elemental computation arise out of even more primitive
sensory-motive qualities and supervene on an even more primordial
possibility of aesthetic appreciation and intentional participation since
Have you forgotten now that I was responding to your own contention in
response to Stathis that if a living person could be duplicated both of the
resulting persons would be original? Perhaps you would care to respond to
my comment with respect to what might be inferred from this contention of
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:23:11 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 18:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:58:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:29:09 AM UTC-5,
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 01:40:15PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
Well, there is overwhelming evidence of many sorts. The very fact that you
and I can even communicate about this issue is one proof, unless you think
I'm just a pesky figment of your imagination!
It is evidence only
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:13:29 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Craig,
Well first I'm not so optimistic as you that some here don't harbor some
pretty ridiculous ideas including that there was no reality before humans.
Second, there is a view I present in my book that resolves both
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 7:12:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/16/2014 11:34 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 17:42, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote:
I don't disagree, but I think this formulation leaves meaning as
mysterious and one may ask why
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:47:46 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
When have I ever suggested that? I don't suppose any such thing. I would
however say that you have so far been impervious to reasoned argument with
respect to comp, on the sole apparent premise that your prior
On 17 February 2014 00:07, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Sure, but in taking this view, which is legitimate in its own terms,
you're in danger of turning step 3 into gibberish just to make a point. But
the point you make here is precisely not the point of step 3. That point is
that
On 17 February 2014 00:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't think so. We know where the values of the Mars Rover are encoded
and how they affect its behavior and we know how we could change them.
That's about as good as reductionism gets.
But now aren't you just substituting
On 2/16/2014 5:03 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 00:07, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
Sure, but in taking this view, which is legitimate in its own terms, you're
in
danger of turning step 3 into gibberish just to make a point. But the
On 2/16/2014 5:14 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 00:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
I don't think so. We know where the values of the Mars Rover are encoded
and how
they affect its behavior and we know how we could change them. That's
On 17 February 2014 00:29, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You don't suggest that I can't understand comp, but you suggest that I am
impervious to reasoned argument about it...why would that be the case if I
understood comp as you seem to think it deserves to be understood?
You
On 17 February 2014 01:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I and I would agree with Stathis - except for the merely. I think Bruno
was right when he observed that epi doesn't mean anything in this
context. Stathis doesn't think that consciousness is separable from the
physics; it's just
On 17 February 2014 01:35, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Well then, facing duplication, would your expectation change to that of
personally experiencing a simultaneous two-valued outcome? And if the
answer is yes, does that imply that you would reject MWI as a possibility
because (I
On 2/16/2014 6:17 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 01:35, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
Well then, facing duplication, would your expectation change to that of
personally
experiencing a simultaneous two-valued outcome? And if the answer is
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:07:06 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 00:29, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You don't suggest that I can't understand comp, but you suggest that I am
impervious to reasoned argument about it...why would that be the case
On Sunday, February 16, 2014, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:45:13 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:49:56 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 16
On 17 February 2014 02:34, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 16 February 2014 17:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't disagree, but I think this formulation leaves meaning as
mysterious and one may ask why consciousness creates meaning. I think
meaning comes from being
On 17 February 2014 08:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/16/2014 5:14 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 00:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't think so. We know where the values of the Mars Rover are encoded
and how they affect its behavior and we know how
75 matches
Mail list logo
