On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/16/2015 1:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Apr 2015, at 05:33, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 16 April 2015 at 12:53, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 15 April
On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 4/15/2015 11:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 16 April 2015 at 15:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Bruno has said to me that one
On 16 Apr 2015, at 20:24, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/15/2015 11:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 16 April 2015 at 15:37, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Bruno has said to me that one cannot refute a scientific
finding by
meekerdb wrote:
On 4/15/2015 11:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 16 April 2015 at 15:37, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Bruno has said to me that one cannot refute a scientific finding by
philosophy. One cannot, of course,
On 16 Apr 2015, at 19:19, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
the argument is that both copies are equally the same person as
the original.
No one assume that.
John Clark assumes this,
Of course I assume it, it's the only logical conclusion
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 4/15/2015 11:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 16 April 2015 at 15:37, Bruce Kellett
On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/16/2015 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Apr 2015, at 02:52, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/15/2015 5:29 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 April 2015 at 04:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/13/2015 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le 14 avr. 2015
On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/16/2015 1:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
So consciousness is not 1-duplicable, but can be considered as
having been duplicated in some 3-1-view, even before it diverges.
How can it be considered duplicated before it diverges?
By associating it
On 16 Apr 2015, at 23:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/16/2015 6:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Apr 2015, at 13:55, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Apr 2015, at 01:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Yes. I think that Bruno's treatment sometimes lacks
philosophical sophistication.
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Physicalism reduces to computationalism if the physics in the
brain is Turing emulable, and then if you follow
On 17 Apr 2015, at 07:12, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 16 Apr 2015, at 06:34, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:33 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
LizR wrote:
On
On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 4/15/2015 11:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Physicalism reduces to computationalism if
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Even if the laws of physics are deterministic and time-symmetric
events would still not be time symmetrical if the initial condition was a
state of minimum entropy because then any change in that state would lead
to a increase in
On 17 Apr 2015, at 18:55, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou
Current global growth estimates are that every two days, the world is now
creating as muchnew digital information as all the data ever created from the
dawn of humans through the currentcentury. It has been estimated that by 2020,
the size of the world’s digital universe will be close to
On 17 Apr 2015, at 14:35, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
On 17 Apr 2015, at 08:26, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 4/15/2015 11:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 16 April 2015 at 15:37, Bruce Kellett
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Bruno has said to me that one cannot refute a scientific
On 4/17/2015 5:35 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
If you had an actual Turing machine and unlimited time, you could by brute force
emulate everything. However, that is not the point. If you car needs a part replaced,
you don't need to get a replacement exactly the same down to the quantum level. This
On 4/17/2015 11:56 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
Current global growth estimates are that every two days, the world is now creating as
much new digital information as all the data ever created from the dawn of humans
through the current century. It has been estimated that
On 4/17/2015 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Comp explains why this is impossible. The finest details of physics are given by sum on
many computations, the finer the details, the more there are. To get the numbers right
up to infinite decimals, you need to run the entire dovetailer in a finite
On 4/17/2015 12:35 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
But physics itself is not Turing emulable. The no-cloning theorem of
quantum physics
precludes it.
Do you mean because you can't exactly copy a given physical state? That doesn't
necessarily mean the physical world as a whole cannot
On 4/17/2015 12:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/16/2015 1:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
So consciousness is not 1-duplicable, but can be considered as having been
duplicated in some 3-1-view, even before it diverges.
How can it be considered
On Saturday, April 18, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/17/2015 12:35 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
But physics itself is not Turing emulable. The no-cloning theorem of
quantum physics precludes it.
Do you mean because you can't exactly copy a given physical state? That
On 18 Apr 2015, at 4:56 am, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Current global growth estimates are that every two days, the world is now
creating as much new digital information as all the data ever created from
the dawn of humans through
Of course about 99% of the information being generated is porn and/or
pictures of cats with silly captions. (Or both.)
On 18 April 2015 at 12:15, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 18 Apr 2015, at 4:56 am, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com
28 matches
Mail list logo
