Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

2015-11-02 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 01 Nov 2015, at 04:55, Pierz wrote: OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but here's a thought that has intrigued me. Computationalism (and let's not worry for the time being about whether one buys Bruno's UDA) states that consciousness supervenes on computation. This necesssarily

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

2015-11-02 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 01 Nov 2015, at 18:12, Brent Meeker wrote: On 11/1/2015 12:59 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sunday, 1 November 2015, Pierz wrote: OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but here's a thought that has intrigued me. Computationalism (and let's not worry for the

Re: The Brain With Dr. David Eagleman

2015-11-02 Thread Brent Meeker
I wonder how many on the list are watching this series. http://www.pbs.org/the-brain-with-david-eagleman/home/ On 11/2/2015 9:39 PM, ag wrote: An experiment was

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

2015-11-02 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 02 Nov 2015, at 08:09, Pierz wrote: On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:25:57 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: On 10/31/2015 11:47 PM, Pierz wrote: On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:05 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: On 10/31/2015 8:55 PM, Pierz wrote: OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but

Re: Carroll's Paradox

2015-11-02 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 02 Nov 2015, at 02:12, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​The computations are emulated in virtue of the truth of number relationship, ​2+2=5 is a numerical relationship as is 2+2=4, the only way to segregate the​

Re: Carroll's Paradox

2015-11-02 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 02 Nov 2015, at 06:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 2/11/2015 4:53 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2015, at 01:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 30/10/2015 3:47 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Oct 2015, at 06:54, Bruce Kellett wrote: On 27/10/2015 9:37 am, Russell Standish wrote: The only

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

2015-11-02 Thread Brent Meeker
On 11/1/2015 11:09 PM, Pierz wrote: On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:25:57 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: On 10/31/2015 11:47 PM, Pierz wrote: On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:05 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: On 10/31/2015 8:55 PM, Pierz wrote: OK, a subject title

Re: Carroll's Paradox

2015-11-02 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​2+2=5 is a numerical relationship as is 2+2=4, the only way to >> segregate the >> ​ >> numerical >> ​ >> relationships that express a truth from the many that don't is to make a >> calculation, and the only way

Re: Carroll's Paradox

2015-11-02 Thread Bruce Kellett
On 2/11/2015 7:10 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Nov 2015, at 06:17, Bruce Kellett wrote: Which is just your idiosyncratic way of saying that we have to apply a projection operator. No, we have to recover the "projection operator" from the computationalist quantization. It is a math problem.

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

2015-11-02 Thread Russell Standish
On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:23:47PM -0800, Pierz wrote: > > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 8:39:12 PM UTC+11, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 08:55:09PM -0700, Pierz wrote: > > > > > > Anyway it seems that if we're committed to computationalism plus Church > > >

Re: The desert island amnesiac - a multiverse parable

2015-11-02 Thread Pierz
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 5:27:04 AM UTC+11, telmo_menezes wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Pierz > wrote: > >> >> >> On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 11:20:32 PM UTC+11, telmo_menezes wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Pierz