On 13 May 2015, at 06:28, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:15:59PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Not necessarily. Simulated beings could be conscious with their
simulated
brains.
In which case their consciousness supervenes on their simulated
physics.
Simulated
On 13 May 2015, at 01:26, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/11/2015 11:14 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
[BM] Why? Have you proven that consciousness supervenes on a
record?
Have you proven that it does not?
No, but I have a lot of evidence it supervenes on brain /
*processes*/.
On 13 May 2015, at 05:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/12/2015 4:26 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/11/2015 11:14 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
[BM] Why? Have you proven that consciousness supervenes on a
record?
Have you proven that it does not?
No, but I
Clouds, especially high clouds have some effect. They reflect visible
bands back to space and they also absorb and reemit IR. Low clouds tend to
increase heat load because they reflect in the day, but they insulate day
and night. It's not magic, it's just calculation.
Of course, I am
Oh it seems all of the results in what I wrote are already known, which I
actually sort of hoped for.
http://bookzz.org/book/717308/5c7a03/?_ir=1
Especially 1.2 and chapter 6...
Now what about the aggregate of all grammatical systems being a candidate
for the level 4 multiverse?
On Sunday,
On 13 May 2015, at 03:52, LizR wrote:
Maudlin attempts to show that counterfactuals don't count, as it
were, by bolting on vast universes of counterfactual-handling
machinery to his already unfeasibly large thought experiment. The
MWI does the same sort of thing for free,
It does not.
On 13 May 2015, at 07:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/12/2015 8:03 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/12/2015 4:26 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/11/2015 11:14 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
[BM] Why? Have you proven that consciousness supervenes on a
record?
Have you
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/12/2015 7:02 PM, LizR wrote:
Brent, that link doesn't work for me - did you miss something off the end?
Oops! Shoulda been:
On 13 May 2015, at 00:49, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 02:53:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The recording is a distinctly different computation, because they do
not behave identically on all counterfactuals.
And that is all what is needed in the MGA to proceed.
Bruno
On 13 May 2015, at 06:24, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 09:26:02AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
This is science. When your theory is contradicted by overwhelming
experimental evidence, it is conventionally taken as evidence that
your theory has been falsified. The MGA puts
On 13 May 2015 at 12:19, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The fact that coffee can change my mind, and that my mind can change my
brain is part of evidence for comp, not for the primitive physical
supervenience thesis, whose main weakness at the start is that it assumes
physicalism,
On 12 May 2015, at 22:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/12/2015 3:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 May 2015, at 02:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: The fact that
projecting the film isn't a general purpose computer seems to me
to be a red herring. It was never claimed that projecting the film
of the
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 May 2015, at 06:28, Russell Standish wrote:
In which case their consciousness supervenes on their simulated
physics.
Simulated beings could be conscious with their simulated brains in
arithmetic.
This is still physical supervenience,
yes, even when the brains
On 13 May 2015, at 01:03, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:19:02PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Exactly. Regardless of truth, it is an interesting model that could
well inform us about the truth. Provided it is tractable, of course,
which so far it has tended not to be
On 13 May 2015, at 07:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
LizR wrote:
On 13 May 2015 at 15:03, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:
Bruno does make a prediction that can be empirically tested. He
predicts that consciousness does not supervene on
On 13 May 2015 at 13:08, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
But the physical brain on which consciousness supervenes might well be
itself a product of comp (and is, if you take the robust UD seriously). So
you have shown that, either your whole theory is internally inconsistent,
or
It's not a phony charge. The reaction is out of preportion to a genuine crisis.
All the billionaires that fund neocommunist causes (Stalin with billionaires)
get their piece of the action, via regulations. Two examples for you: One is
the CEO of Bershire-Hathaway, which owns CSX, which moves
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 May 2015, at 08:20, Russell Standish wrote:
For a
robust ontology, counterfactuals are physically instantiated,
therefore the MGA is invalid.
I don't see this. The if A then B else C can be realized in a
newtonian universe, indeed in the game of life or c++.
And
On 13 May 2015, at 08:20, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 03:45:09PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That might be the idea. It is difficult to get to this, though,
since the notion of primary materialism doesn't really feature in
the argument. Before we get to the MGA, the
On 13 May 2015, at 15:22, David Nyman wrote:
On 13 May 2015 at 12:19, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The fact that coffee can change my mind, and that my mind can change
my brain is part of evidence for comp, not for the primitive
physical supervenience thesis, whose main weakness
On 13 May 2015, at 03:59, Jason Resch wrote:
Chalmer's fading quailia argument shows that if replacing a
biological neuron with a functionally equivalent silicon neuron
changed conscious perception, then it would lead to an absurdity,
either:
1. quaila fade/change as silicon neurons
On 13 May 2015, at 14:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 May 2015, at 06:28, Russell Standish wrote:
In which case their consciousness supervenes on their simulated
physics.
Simulated beings could be conscious with their simulated brains in
arithmetic.
This is still
On 5/13/2015 3:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 May 2015, at 00:49, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 02:53:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The recording is a distinctly different computation, because they do
not behave identically on all counterfactuals.
And that is all
On 13 May 2015, at 18:31, David Nyman wrote:
On 13 May 2015 at 17:14, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
why should they predominate ? They should only have higher
probability relatively to you.. you're in that class of observers,
that certainly constrains what you can observe...
Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:33:42PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 May 2015, at 08:20, Russell Standish wrote:
For a
robust ontology, counterfactuals are physically instantiated,
therefore the MGA is invalid.
I don't see this. The if A then B
Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 01:04:09PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 14 May 2015 at 12:32, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:26:17AM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 13 May 2015 at 18:20, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
For a robust
On 5/13/2015 8:49 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 13 May 2015 at 14:53, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I think it is a good summary, yes. Thanks!
Building on that then, would you say that bodies and brains (including of course our
own) fall within the class of
As an aside to recent discussions, it is interesting to point out that
physics has some of the problems associated with over-confidence in
ideas coming from pure intuition too.
http://aeon.co/magazine/science/has-cosmology-run-into-a-creative-crisis
This article by Ross Anderson in Aeon
Aha, that's more like it. Now I just need something by The Smiths to get me
in the right mood...
On 13 May 2015 at 21:36, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:20 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/12/2015 7:02 PM, LizR wrote:
Brent, that link
On 14 May 2015 at 05:46, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
The only other meaning of free will that I know of that isn't gibberish
is the inability to always know what we will do next before we do it even
in an unchanging environment, but almost nobody uses that meaning so all
that
On 13 May 2015 at 18:20, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
For a robust ontology, counterfactuals are physically instantiated,
therefore the MGA is invalid.
Can you elaborate on this? ISTM that counterfactuals aren't, and indeed
can't, be physically instantiated. (Isn't that what
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 01:46:49PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Free will is the ability to do something stupid. Nonrational.
OK fine free will is non-rational, in other words an event performed for NO
REASON, in other
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:07:52PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 May 2015, at 08:20, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 03:45:09PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That might be the idea. It is difficult to get to this, though,
since the notion of primary materialism doesn't
Here's from the Gov of california-
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/research.html
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/epas-absurd-justifications-power-plant-regulations/
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059995234
https://www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change
Do
On 13 May 2015 at 17:14, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
why should they predominate ? They should only have higher probability
relatively to you.. you're in that class of observers, that certainly
constrains what you can observe... there are many more insects than humans,
yet,
It doesn't matter what we say. It's the super rich that rule things. You know
what I feel about solar and storage. I am an insect floating around a modern
office building, trying to get in. It's an exaggeration, but a true problem,
there. Insect 15,877,123, 749 signing out!
They might consider me many things, that they don't like. Off-times, the
progressive minds find what I say as offensive. I have no love affair with big
oil. But the progressive love-affair with the fascist dreams of Left
billionaires to become a soviet version of Rulers and Serfs, I despise. So
2015-05-13 17:49 GMT+02:00 David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com:
On 13 May 2015 at 14:53, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I think it is a good summary, yes. Thanks!
Building on that then, would you say that bodies and brains (including of
course our own) fall within the class of
The Uma cannot make peace with the Qfur, because it is outlawed by Sharia,
Dar Es Salaam = Islam (House of Peace). Dar al Harb = Infidels, (House of War),
but do a temporary truce (Hoodna) but that is it. Otherwise the Faithful
receive Allah's wrath which can mean eternal hell, or permanent
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:17:34PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 May 2015, at 07:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That might be the idea. It is difficult to get to this, though,
since the notion of primary materialism doesn't really feature
in the argument.
It does, as usually
Perhaps better
All posited (so far) scientific TOE are actually wrongly named. They would be
correctly named:
Theories predicting how the universe appears to an assumed scientific observer
inside it
Or maybe
Theories of everything except the scientific observer
By Scientific observer
On 14 May 2015 at 06:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
An abstract AI can exist in platonia relative to an abstract environment
in platonia.
That's all that comp claims, as far as I can tell.
What I'm interested in is what makes the program/AI conscious. Bruno has
an answer, i.e.
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
This was always why I found the fading qualia argument unconvincing -
in spite of being a died-in-the-wool functionalist.
Russell - just so you know - the expression is dyed in the wool. It
refers to the fact that
But oil (for example) is also subsidised. It doesn't pay environmental
costs, for a start.
--
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 Wed, May 13, 2015 at 02:33:06PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
3. A recording of (2) supra being played back.
Nobody would call that a computation, except to evade comp's
consequences.
I do, because it is a computation, albeit a rather trivial one. It is
not to evade comp's
On 14 May 2015 at 12:32, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:26:17AM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 13 May 2015 at 18:20, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
For a robust ontology, counterfactuals are physically instantiated,
therefore the MGA is
On 14 May 2015 at 12:01, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 01:46:49PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Free will is the ability to do something stupid. Nonrational.
OK fine free will is
Yes, liz. Eliminate oil subsidies unless its for applied science. Aka
engineering development. Being a brutal libertarian, let it do the darwinian
two-step, that we all as individuals must do.
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 10:33:42PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 May 2015, at 08:20, Russell Standish wrote:
For a
robust ontology, counterfactuals are physically instantiated,
therefore the MGA is invalid.
I don't see this. The if A then B else C can be
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:26:17AM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 13 May 2015 at 18:20, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
For a robust ontology, counterfactuals are physically instantiated,
therefore the MGA is invalid.
Can you elaborate on this? ISTM that counterfactuals aren't,
On 13 May 2015 at 22:15, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 13 May 2015, at 03:52, LizR wrote:
Maudlin attempts to show that counterfactuals don't count, as it were, by
bolting on vast universes of counterfactual-handling machinery to his
already unfeasibly large thought experiment.
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 01:04:09PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 14 May 2015 at 12:32, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:26:17AM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 13 May 2015 at 18:20, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
For a robust ontology,
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 01:20:44PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 14 May 2015 at 12:01, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 01:46:49PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Free will is the ability to do
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 01:32:24PM +1200, LizR wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
This was always why I found the fading qualia argument unconvincing -
in spite of being a died-in-the-wool functionalist.
Russell - just so you know -
On 5/13/2015 5:32 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:26:17AM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 13 May 2015 at 18:20, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
For a robust ontology, counterfactuals are physically instantiated,
therefore the MGA is invalid.
Can you elaborate on
On 5/13/2015 6:04 PM, LizR wrote:
On 14 May 2015 at 12:32, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:26:17AM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 13 May 2015 at 18:20, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au
Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 02:51:00PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
But we are always going to have difficulty assigning a truth value
to a counterfactual like: The present king of France has a beard.
I would expect that somewhere in the Multiverse, France still has a
king
On 5/13/2015 10:25 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/13/2015 5:32 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:26:17AM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 13 May 2015 at 18:20, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
For a robust ontology, counterfactuals are physically
meekerdb wrote:
On 5/13/2015 5:32 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:26:17AM +1200, LizR wrote:
On 13 May 2015 at 18:20, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
For a robust ontology, counterfactuals are physically instantiated,
therefore the MGA is invalid.
Can
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 02:51:00PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
But we are always going to have difficulty assigning a truth value
to a counterfactual like: The present king of France has a beard.
I would expect that somewhere in the Multiverse, France still has a
king in 2015, and has a
On 12 May 2015, at 18:47, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
No, what they proved is that physical reality can emulate
arithmetic;
False. Just read the original paper of Church, Post, Turing,
Kleene, please. They don't mention physics at
On 13 May 2015 at 14:53, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I think it is a good summary, yes. Thanks!
Building on that then, would you say that bodies and brains (including of
course our own) fall within the class of embedded features of the machine's
generalised 'physical environment'?
On 13 May 2015, at 17:49, David Nyman wrote:
On 13 May 2015 at 14:53, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I think it is a good summary, yes. Thanks!
Building on that then, would you say that bodies and brains
(including of course our own) fall within the class of embedded
features of
On 5/13/2015 2:30 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I am still worried about the reliability of the temperature values
themselves. I
would be less worried if the raw data was made public.
It is public. But what good does that do.
Well it does good, at least for people like me. So
From a purely commercial pov, uranium fission couldn't cut it economically,
and that is what surpressed nuclear. Even thorium 232-uranium 233 reactors,
have failed to make it outside of Canada, when cost drives them from the
market. The cheapest is coal, which should need no subsidies, and
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:38:12AM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 08:59:57PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
Chalmer's fading quailia argument http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html
shows that if
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 03:45:09PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
That might be the idea. It is difficult to get to this, though,
since the notion of primary materialism doesn't really feature in
the argument. Before we get to the MGA, the dovetailer has been
introduced, and this is supposed to
On 12-May-2015, at 9:39 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 May 2015 at 14:29, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:
1) The Quran reminds us that humans have been made Incharge of Earth and
hence are responsible for the welfare of the Earth and all in it
2) The Quran also
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:38:12AM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 08:59:57PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 01:49:50AM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
But in this case behavior does not change. And above you say there is some
point where it almost immediately shuts off. Would it be a faded quail or
partial zombie while in the midst of switching off?
Why couldn't it be a
On 5/13/2015 5:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 May 2015, at 22:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/12/2015 3:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 May 2015, at 02:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: The fact that projecting the film
isn't a general purpose computer seems to me to be a red herring. It was never
71 matches
Mail list logo
