A scientifically sound, objective test for consciousness

2009-01-27 Thread Colin Hales
. It is hoped that in opening a discussion of a novel approach, the artificial intelligence community may eventually find a viable contender for its long overdue scientific basis. cheers colin hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you

Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started

2009-03-05 Thread Colin Hales
Hi Bruno, I feel your angst. The received view is a blunt and frightened beast, guarded by the ignorant and uncreative in wily protection of turf and co-conspirator. I recently did a powerpoint presentation called rejection 101. It sounds like you have been through exactly what I have been

Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started

2009-03-05 Thread Colin Hales
The file. sorry use *Rejection 101.pdf* enjoy! colin Colin Hales wrote: Hi Bruno, I feel your angst. The received view is a blunt and frightened beast, guarded by the ignorant and uncreative in wily protection of turf and co-conspirator. I recently did a powerpoint presentation

Re: Cellular automata @ home?

2009-03-09 Thread Colin Hales
What you have here is a phenomenon which has been described a lot for 50 years. It appears in the literature in the descriptions of the synchronous behaviour of crickets, cicadas and fireflies. Eg: D. E. Kim, A spiking neuron model for synchronous flashing of fireflies, Biosystems, vol. 76,

Dual Aspect Science

2009-04-03 Thread Colin Hales
colin hales *ABSTRACT*. Our chronically impoverished explanatory capacity in respect of P-consciousness is highly suggestive of a problem with science itself, rather than its lack of acquisition of some particular knowledge. The hidden assumption built into science is that science itself

Re: Consciousness is information?

2009-04-25 Thread Colin Hales
definitely not computation in the 'computation BY' sense. Enjoy! colin hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list

Re: No MWI

2009-05-14 Thread Colin Hales
this cultural schism operating? regards Colin Hales Jason Resch wrote: The following link shows convincingly that what one gains by accepting MWI is far greater than what one loses (an answer to the born probabilities) http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/05/if-many-worlds.html The only law in all

Re: No MWI

2009-05-14 Thread Colin Hales
Brent Meeker wrote: Colin Hales wrote: Hi, When I read quantum mechanics and listen to those invested in the many places the mathematics leads, What strikes me is the extent to which the starting point is mathematics. That is, the entire discussion is couched as if the mathematics

Re: Dreaming On

2009-07-26 Thread Colin Hales
David Nyman wrote: Thanks to everyone who responded to my initial sally on dreams and machines. Naturally I have arrogated the right to plagiarise your helpful comments in what follows, which is an aphoristic synthesis of my understanding of the main points that have emerged thus far. I

Re: Dreaming On

2009-07-27 Thread Colin Hales
their outcome projections/expectations reviewed? cheers colin hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-05 Thread Colin Hales
that artificial light is light. R.I.P. COMP = Strong AI (a computer can be a mind) is false. = Weak AI (A computer model of cognition can never be actual cognition) is true. It's nice to finally have at least one tiny little place (X) where the seeds of clarity can be found. Cheers colin hales 1Z

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-06 Thread Colin Hales
Brent Meeker wrote: Colin Hales wrote: Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed refutation of computationalism. It's going through peer review at the moment. The basic problem that most people fall foul of is the conflation of 'physics-as-computation

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-06 Thread Colin Hales
Rex Allen wrote: If computationalism is true, and computation is the source of conscious experience, then shouldn't we expect that what is ontologically real is the simplest possible universe that can develop and support physical systems that are Turing equivalent? Does our universe look

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-06 Thread Colin Hales
Brent Meeker wrote: Colin Hales wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Colin Hales wrote: Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed refutation of computationalism. It's going through peer review at the moment. The basic problem that most people fall foul

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-09 Thread Colin Hales
ronaldheld wrote: As a formally trained Physicist, what do I accept? that Physics is well represented mathematically? That the Multiverse is composed of mathematical structures some of which represent physical laws? Or something else? Ronald

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-09 Thread Colin Hales
regrettable snips to get at the heart of it. One thing at a time. Hope you don't mind. russell standish wrote: Nobody is suggesting that brains are Turing machines. All that is being suggested (by COMP) is that brains perform computations (and nothing but), hence can be perfectly emulated by

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-10 Thread Colin Hales
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Aug 2009, at 04:37, Colin Hales wrote: Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed refutation of computationalism. It's going through peer review at the moment. The basic problem that most people fall foul of is the conflation of 'physics

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-11 Thread Colin Hales
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Aug 2009, at 09:08, Colin Hales wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Aug 2009, at 04:37, Colin Hales wrote: Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed refutation of computationalism. It's going through peer review at the moment. The basic

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-12 Thread Colin Hales
will do... I refute it thus! -Dr. Johnson http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html Onward! Stephen - Original Message - *From:* Colin Hales mailto:c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-12 Thread Colin Hales
Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2009/8/12 Colin Hales c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au: My motivation to kill COMP is purely aimed at bring a halt to the delusion of the AGI community that Turing-computing will ever create a mind. They are throwing away $millions based on a false belief

Re: Can mind be a computation if physics is fundamental?

2009-08-12 Thread Colin Hales
Bruno Marchal wrote: Colin, We agree on the conclusion. We disagree on vocabulary, and on the validity of your reasoning. Let us call I-comp the usual indexical mechanism discussed in this list (comp). Let us call m-comp the thesis that there is a primitive natural world, and that it

OFF LIST Re: Emulation and Stuff - The Ross Model of our Universe

2009-08-18 Thread Colin Hales
Hi, Can you please send a .PDF or a .DOC I can't read .DOCX and I can't upgrade my PC to read ituni rules... :-( regards Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group

Re: New Paper by Thomas Hertog and Stephen Hawking

2009-12-29 Thread Colin Hales
Jason Resch wrote: Described in this article: http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2617 This summation of all paths, proposed in the 1960s by physicist Richard Feynman and others, is the only way to explain some of the bizarre properties of quantum particles, such as their

PSYCHE Vol 16 #1 ... essay

2010-06-11 Thread Colin Hales
short (1500 words!) * Enjoy. Colin Hales -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr

Re: PSYCHE Vol 16 #1 ... essay

2010-06-12 Thread Colin Hales
this. This is the position I am gradually building. I am going to go so far as to formally demand a summit on the matter. I believe things are that screwed up. 300 years of this confinement in the (A) prison is long enough. cheers colin hales -- You received this message because you

Re: PSYCHE 16(1) ... essay results

2010-06-12 Thread Colin Hales
received from 'reality and indiviually colored to one's personal background and mental-built. Now I have some remarks - not argumentative mostly (except for the 'Science of Quale') on that beautifully crafted (short!) writing that reaped the award. Here it goes: Colin Hales was named a 'winner

Re: PSYCHE Vol 16 #1 ... essay

2010-06-14 Thread Colin Hales
Bruno Marchal wrote: Colin, I think we have always agreed on this conclusion. We may differ on the premises. It just happen that I am using a special hypothesis, which is very common, but not so well understood, and which is the digital mechanist hypothesis. I think things are more subtle

Re: A paper by Bas C. van Fraassen

2010-10-21 Thread Colin Hales
! :-) Colin Hales. Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Friends, Please check out the following paper by Bas C. van Fraassen for many ideas that have gone into my posts so far, in particular the argument against the idea of a “view from nowhere”. www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/abstract

Re: A paper by Bas C. van Fraassen

2010-10-23 Thread Colin Hales
of such a situation, just as an exercise.. cheers colin hales Bruno Marchal wrote: HI Stephen, Just a short reply to your post to Colin, and indirectly to your last posts. On 22 Oct 2010, at 10:53, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Colin, Let me put you are ease, van Fraassen has

Re: A paper by Bas C. van Fraassen

2010-10-24 Thread Colin Hales
Brent Meeker wrote: On 10/23/2010 2:37 PM, Colin Hales wrote: I am pretty sure that there is a profound misinterpretation and/or unrecognized presupposition deeply embedded in the kinds of discussion of which Van F and your reply and Bruno's fits. It's so embedded that there appears

RE: To observe is to......

2006-10-11 Thread Colin Hales
something!) behind the 'artificial scientist' that must have 'real' observations. Cheers Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything

RE: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-11 Thread Colin Hales
this. I can't wait to play with it... anyone got $100 million? Call me. :-) Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-19 Thread Colin Hales
of the underlying reality THE physics and the physics of appearances ('traditional empirical physics') the 'aboutness'-physics = 'meta'-physics? Seems to me the nomenclature is backwards. Not that I care... as long as both physics get done... the name does not matter. Cheers Colin Hales

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-19 Thread Colin Hales
It's one of my favourite lines from Hume! but the issue does not live quite so clearly into the 21st century. We now have words and much neuroscience pinning down subjective experience to the operation of small groups of cells and hence, likely, single cells. It's entirely

RE: To observe is to......EC

2006-10-22 Thread Colin Hales
=== STEP 6: Initial state, 'axioms' (*) The initial state of the EC axiom set is 1 huge collection of phase related fluctuations. The (*) means that all the axioms are coincident - there is no 'space' yet. No concept of place. The number of spatial

RE: To observe is to......EC

2006-10-23 Thread Colin Hales
Colin Hales wrote: 3) The current state of the proof is 'now' the thin slice of the present. Just a couple of questions for the moment Colin, until I've a little more time. Actually, that's precisely what it's about - 'time'. Just how thin is this slice of yours

Re: String theory and Cellular Automata

2007-03-14 Thread Colin Hales
keep looking at it. The trick is to let go of the idea that 'fundamental building blocks' of nature are a meaningful concept (we are tricked into the belief be our perceptual/epistemological goals) ... cheers, colin hales Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote: I'm thinking there's some kind of similarity

RE: Mouse brain simulated on a computer - NOT

2007-04-29 Thread Colin Hales
Hi, What they did was hook X million simple neural soma models to each other with Y000 models of synaptic interconnects. Very useful for investigating large-scale dynamicsbutthe leap to 'mouse brain'?.presumptuous I think. Perhaps... 'Mouse-brain scale idealised connectionist model'

Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?

2007-06-03 Thread Colin Hales
to learn. If the computer/scientist can match the human/scientist...it's as conscious as a human. It must be. cheers colin hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post

Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?

2007-06-04 Thread Colin Hales
that isn't axiomatically flawed. Everything is scientific evidence of something. Scientists are no exception. cheers, colin hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post

Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?

2007-06-04 Thread Colin Hales
that isn't axiomatically flawed. Everything is scientific evidence of something. Scientists are no exception. cheers, colin hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post

Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?

2007-06-07 Thread Colin Hales
colin hales BTW thanks.I now have the BAAS paper on .PDF Baas, N. A. (1994) Emergence, Hierarchies, and Hyperstructures. In C. G. Langton (ed.). Artificial life III : proceedings of the Workshop on Artificial Life, held June 1992 in Santa Fe, New Mexico, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. I'll

Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?

2007-06-11 Thread Colin Hales
Hi again, Russel: I'm sorry, but you worked yourself up into an incomprehensible rant. Is evolution creative in your view or not? If it is, then there is little point debating definitions, as we're in agreement. If not, then we clearly use the word creative in different senses, and perhaps

Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?

2007-06-13 Thread Colin Hales
as science? (B) of course. (B) is science and has an empirical future. Belief (A) is religion, not science. Bit of a no-brainer, eh? Cheers colin hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List

Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?

2007-06-13 Thread Colin Hales
Hi Stathis, Colin The bogus logic I detect in posts around this area... 'Humans are complex and are conscious' 'Humans were made by a complex biosphere' therefore 'The biosphere is conscious' Stathis That conclusion is spurious, but it is the case that non-conscious

Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?

2007-06-13 Thread Colin Hales
such descriptions are logically necessarily impotent in prescribing why that very consciousness exists at all. Wigner got this in 1960something time to catch up. gotta go cheers colin hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you

Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?

2007-06-13 Thread Colin Hales
- that will scientifically demonstrate science to us and therefore be justifyably the possessors of qualia. Upon failure of the test the 'STUFF' I have chosen must be the wrong STUFF and that will be scientifically refuted. In any event real science will be done. gotta go. cheers colin hales

Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?

2007-06-16 Thread Colin Hales
Hi, I am going to have to be a bit targetted in my responses I am a TAD whelmed at the moment. COLIN 4) Belief in 'magical emergence' qualitative novelty of a kind utterly unrelated to the componentry. RUSSEL The latter clause refers to emergence (without the magical qualifier),

Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?

2007-06-16 Thread Colin Hales
Hi, RUSSEL All I can say is that I don't understand your distinction. You have introduced a new term necessary primitive - what on earth is that? But I'll let this pass, it probably isn't important. COLIN Oh no you don't!! It matters. Bigtime... Take away the necessary primitive: no

Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?

2007-06-17 Thread Colin Hales
of MON_STUFF have nothing to do with any other dance. That is the organisational level where the visibility finally manifests to non-zero...why neural soma are fat - it's all about signal to noise ratio. weirdness time over. Gotta go. Colin Hales

Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?

2007-06-17 Thread Colin Hales
Dear Brent, If you had the most extravagent MRI machine in history, which trapped complete maps of all electrons, neuclei and any photons and then plotted them out - you would have a 100% complete, scientifically acquired publishable description and in that description would be absolutely no

Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?

2007-06-19 Thread Colin Hales
work... and I am fiendishly empirical to the bitter end... Before I re-deliver my X... I'd like to leave the discussion at the META-X level (about any X or about all possible Xs)over to you cheers colin hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received

Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?

2007-06-20 Thread Colin Hales
down a wys.. === Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 03:47:19PM +1000, Colin Hales wrote: Hi, RUSSEL All I can say is that I don't understand your distinction. You have introduced a new term necessary primitive - what on earth

The Principle of Natural Ontic Genesis

2007-06-23 Thread Colin Hales
are necessarily unified scientific activities. In that unification the answers await us. regards, Colin Hales = The Principle of Natural Ontic Genesis (Version_0) It is a fundamentally necessary and implicit fact of the natural world, regardless

Re: An Equivalence Principle

2008-04-07 Thread Colin Hales
is the most general - the physicist and in particular the cosmologist. regards, Colin Hales [1] Lisi, G. (2007) An exceptionally simple theory of everything. http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770 == Youness Ayaita wrote: By this contribution

Re: Cosmology and Boltzmann brains

2008-06-14 Thread Colin Hales
such predictions are found shall signs of a real explanation (of scientists) be created. None of the discussions in cosmology do that nor have they ever done that. regards, Colin Hales Greg Egan wrote: On Jun 13, 9:25 am, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure his application

Re: The Super-Intelligence (SI) speaks: An imaginary dialogue

2008-09-01 Thread Colin Hales
Hi Marc, */Eliezer/*'s hubris about a Bayesian approach to intelligence is nothing more than the usual 'metabelief' about a mathematics... or about computation... meant in the sense that cognition is computation, where computation is done BY the universe (with the material of the universe

Re: The Super-Intelligence (SI) speaks: An imaginary dialogue

2008-09-01 Thread Colin Hales
). cheers, colin Jesse Mazer wrote: Colin Hales wrote: Computationalism is FALSE in the sense that it cannot be used to construct a scientist. A scientist deals with the UNKNOWN. If you could compute a scientist you would already know everything! Science would be impossible. So you can

Re: The Super-Intelligence (SI) speaks: An imaginary dialogue

2008-09-01 Thread Colin Hales
: On Sep 2, 1:56 pm, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Marc, */Eliezer/*'s hubris about a Bayesian approach to intelligence is nothing more than the usual 'metabelief' about a mathematics... or about computation... meant in the sense that cognition is computation, where computation

Re: The Super-Intelligence (SI) speaks: An imaginary dialogue

2008-09-02 Thread Colin Hales
NOT be a COMP entity. This is more doable in the shorter term. So I can think of multiple reasons 'why you can't...X'..Thanks for forcing me to verbalise the argument...in yet another way... regards, Colin Hales == Jesse Mazer wrote: Colin Hales

Re: The Super-Intelligence (SI) speaks: An imaginary dialogue

2008-09-02 Thread Colin Hales
Hi Folks, I can't throw myself any further into this ... I have to get back in the fray here. However - a couple of quick-ones for Brent and Bruno: COL the instant the abstraction happens, from that moment on you know NOTHING about the current state of the distal environment...all you have

Re: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?

2008-10-12 Thread Colin Hales
ridden maths rapture rules...something I cannot do. regards, Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe

Re: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?

2008-10-12 Thread Colin Hales
Brent Meeker wrote: Colin Hales wrote: From the everything list FYI Brent Meeker wrote: Why would you take Stapp as exemplifying the state of QM? ISTM that the decoherence program plus Everett and various collapse theories represents the current state of QM. Brent

Re: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?

2008-10-12 Thread Colin Hales
calls it a 'reflexive monism', but he does not apply the concept to science itself. cheers colin hales */- Terminology /* */Neuroscience and cognitive science have a highly developed and well documented system used to discuss the subjectively delivered, privately presented

Re: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?

2008-10-12 Thread Colin Hales
, colin hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more

Re: What the B***P do quantum physicists know?

2008-10-13 Thread Colin Hales
Michael Rosefield wrote: And of course you could always add ASPECT 0 - all possible instances of ASPECT 1 Yeah.. a new 'science of universe construction'? I wonder if there's a name for something like that? unigenesis? As I said in my post to Jesse: - - -- - - - - - aspect 1 is NOT

Re: Confirmed: Reality is the dream of NUMBERS

2008-11-22 Thread Colin Hales
I knew it Row row row your boat Gently down the stream Merrily Merrily Merrily Merrily Life is but a dream. Is actually a law of nature... cheers Colin Hales Kim Jones wrote: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html

Re: Confirmed: Reality is the dream of NUMBERS

2008-11-23 Thread Colin Hales
back in boat, assuming merrily mode. It's as if I am rowing, downstream. :-) cheers, colin hales Kim Jones wrote: Oh, somebody will stick their head up soon and disagree. Where would all the fun and games be if some rash, working scientist actually confirmed something? Counting angels

Re: Confirmed: Reality is the dream of NUMBERS

2008-11-23 Thread Colin Hales
Kim Jones wrote: On 24/11/2008, at 10:29 AM, Colin Hales wrote: OK. I was rowing my apparently virtual boat merrily down the stream. But apparently that's not interesting enough. :-) It's more interesting when you get a barbershop quartet to sing it as a round - then you get polyphony

Re: Confirmed: Reality is the dream of NUMBERS

2008-11-23 Thread Colin Hales
Tom Caylor wrote: On Nov 23, 4:29 pm, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to this article, the best we can do is to VIRTUALLY CONFIRM something. But since reality is VIRTUAL, according to this VIRTUAL CONFIRMATION, is not VIRTUAL CONFIRMATION equivalent, in reality

Re: Confirmed: Reality is the dream of NUMBERS

2008-11-24 Thread Colin Hales
Kim Jones wrote: On 24/11/2008, at 1:50 PM, Colin Hales wrote: It seems that the last thing physicists want to do is predict themselves. They do absolutely everything except that. When they say everything in a Theory of Everything, that's what they actually mean: Everything

Re: MGA for DUMMIES

2008-11-29 Thread Colin Hales
Hi, Computationalsim pronounced dead here: Bringsjord, S. (1999). The Zombie Attack on the Computational Conception of Mind. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LIX(1), 41-69. cheers colin Kim Jones wrote: A representation of a thing (say MGA) is as good (ie as authentic) as the

Re: Mind and personhood. Was: Kim 1

2008-12-14 Thread Colin Hales
to deny self-awareness as a marker of self awareness. You can use this as a logical bootstrap to sort things out. I like it! cheers colin hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group

RE: A calculus of personal identity

2006-06-23 Thread Colin Hales
Hi, [ALL] Lee, I seem to have miss-attributed the source of my guffaw that lead to my little outburst to Bruno. Apologies to all as appropriate... :-) [John Mikes] Brent, Colin and Bruno: I had my decade-long struggle on 3-4 discussion lists (~psych and ~Physx) about objective reality being

RE: COMP Self-awareness

2006-07-23 Thread Colin Hales
is blah blah blah and the real issue gets missed constantly. The whole domain of discussion is fundamentally flwed from the outset. Very interestingbut not about reality. Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed

RE: COMP Self-awareness

2006-07-25 Thread Colin Hales
Denton, The Primordial Emotions: The dawning of consciousness, Oxford University Press. 2005 (Bruno: it came out first in French!) That help? Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything

RE: Bruno's argument

2006-07-27 Thread Colin Hales
and implicit to the reality of the universe (whatever it is, it is it!) then the abstraction throws it away. Cheers Colin hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post

RE: Bruno's argument

2006-07-31 Thread Colin Hales
missing something... Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send

RE: Are First Person prime?

2006-08-08 Thread Colin Hales
. WE are computations within it. We can only ever acquire data about it from the perspective of being in it. Maybe you're not talking about the same universe as me. We're trying to get to grips with our universe, yes? I don't get it. Then again I seem not to get a lot. :-) Colin hales

RE: Are First Person prime?

2006-08-08 Thread Colin Hales
is a communicable 1st person perspective that yet another 'first person perspective' can find if it looks. No-one ever has a 'third person' perspective. Ernest Nagel named a book after it: 'the view from nowhere'. If 3rd person does not exist, then 1st person is all there is left, isn't it? Colin

RE: Are First Person prime?

2006-08-09 Thread Colin Hales
of a physics of qualia) That's as complicated as it needs to be. I think you and I are on the same wavelength here. Speaking of coffee . I'm off! Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

RE: Are First Person prime?

2006-08-09 Thread Colin Hales
David Nyman: Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:20 AM To: Everything List Subject: Re: Are First Person prime? George Levy wrote: Colin Hales remarks seem to agree with what I say. However, I do not deny the existence of a third person perspective. I only say that it is secondary

RE: Are First Person prime?

2006-08-10 Thread Colin Hales
producing people/observers who can define words like physicalism, which is kind of interesting, isn't it? Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send

RE: Are First Person prime?

2006-08-10 Thread Colin Hales
Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED

RE: Are First Person prime?

2006-08-10 Thread Colin Hales
, but the rate/depth to which they are analysed. A high novelty environment means faster/more brain process, time apparently goes slowly (eg during an accident). In a low novelty environment the brain analysis rate/depth drops. Time appears to go more quickly. Cheers Colin Hales

RE: Dual-Aspect Science

2006-08-15 Thread Colin Hales
. I'd recommend spending time working on structures that 'look like' QM when you are part of the structure. Make sense? I'll keep saying this until it sinks in. Somebody other than me has to see this! Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message

RE: Dual-Aspect Science

2006-08-15 Thread Colin Hales
LZ: Colin Hales wrote: The underlying structure unifies the whole system. Of course you'll get some impact via the causality of the structurevia the deep structure right down into the very fabric of space. In a very real way the existence of 'mysterious observer

RE: Can we ever know truth?

2006-08-15 Thread Colin Hales
. Parsimony demands we assume 'something' and then investigate it. Having done that we need to hold that very same 'something' responsible for all the other 'seeming' delivered by qualia. Seeming sounds great until you try and conduct a scientific study of the 'seeming' system. Colin Hales

RE: Dual-Aspect Science

2006-08-17 Thread Colin Hales
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: Hi, A lot of the dialog below is a mismatch of ideas which indicates that I have underestimated the degree of difficulty to be expected in getting the If they are different substructures within a further (different) structure, they are also unified, in that

RE: Dual-Aspect Science

2006-08-17 Thread Colin Hales
and T' equally. Natural laws in T' (future) will account for structures that generate the qualia that are used to formulate the laws T. The system is quite consistent and empirically backed throughout. Cheers Colin Hales t0 Notes: Please note that the detail included in these notes is not intended

RE: Dual-Aspect Science ooops

2006-08-17 Thread Colin Hales
for both T and T' equally. Natural laws in T' (future) will account for structures that generate the qualia that are used to formulate the laws T. The system is quite consistent and empirically backed throughout. Cheers Colin Hales t0 Notes: Please note that the detail included in these notes

RE: Dual-Aspect Science

2006-08-18 Thread Colin Hales
to formulate the laws T. The system is quite consistent and empirically backed throughout. Cheers Colin Hales t0 Notes: Please note that the detail included in these notes is not intended to be complete or even appropriately configured. It is merely intended to be a prototype - as starting point

RE: evidence blindness

2006-08-26 Thread Colin Hales
is not observable is completely absolutely wrong. We observe consciousness permanently. It's all we ever do! It's just not within the phenomenal fields, it IS the phenomenal fields. Got it? Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you

RE: evidence blindness

2006-08-26 Thread Colin Hales
that I'd stop constantly coming across signs of the aberrant beliefs in scientific discoursenot just here on this list but all around meso pervasive and s wrong. Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed

RE: evidence blindness

2006-08-26 Thread Colin Hales
consciousness is invisible to realise that that is completely utterly wrong and that as a result of thinking like that, valuable evidence as to the nature of the universe is being discarded for no reason other than habit and culture and discipline blindness. Colin Hales

RE: evidence blindness

2006-08-28 Thread Colin Hales
!an answer... btw...I'm thinking of writing a short paper on the long overdue death of the solipsism argument and the 'no evidence for subjective experience' dogma I'd like to erect a grave-stone here on the everything list! R.I.P. :-) cheers, colin hales

RE: computationalism and supervenience

2006-09-11 Thread Colin Hales
it they are welcome... just email me. Or perhaps I could put it in the google forum somewhere... it can do that, can't it? BTW: The 'what it is like' of a Turing machine = what it is like to be a tape and tape reader, regardless of what is on the tape. 'tape_reader_ness', I assume... :-) Regards, Colin

RE: computationalism and supervenience

2006-09-11 Thread Colin Hales
... I think I might be a world expert in zombies yes, that's better. :-) Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list

RE: computationalism and supervenience

2006-09-12 Thread Colin Hales
Brent Meeker: Colin Hales wrote: Stathis Papaioannou snip Maybe this is a copout, but I just don't think it is even logically possible to explain what consciousness *is* unless you have it. It's like the problem of explaining vision to a blind man: he might be the world's greatest

RE: computationalism and supervenience

2006-09-12 Thread Colin Hales
Brent Meeker: Colin Hales wrote: ... As far as the internal life of the CPU is concerned... whatever it is like to be an electrically noisy hot rock, regardless of the programalthough the character of the noise may alter with different programs! That's like say whatever

  1   2   >