I think in regards to conscious, you can't have one without the other.
Both information and computation are needed, as the computation
imparts meaning to the information, and the information accumulates
meaning making each computation and its result more meaningful.
If I sent you an arbitrary
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Kelly harmon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 21, 11:31 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
We could say that a state A access to a state B if there is a
universal machine (a universal number relation) transforming A into B.
This works at the ontological
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Kelly harmon...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't say that they are rare, I say they don't make any sense. A
big difference.
I say that every possible event is perceived to happen, and so nothing
is more or less rare than anything else. There are only things that
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Kelly harmon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 26, 2:01 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not sure that the measure problem can be so easily
abandoned/ignored. Assuming every Observer Moment had has an equal
measure, then the random/white-noise
exclusive with happening more than once. The question is
whether or not that makes any difference to the observer(s?).
Jason
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Kelly harmon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
In fact I used that same
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 1:05 AM, russell standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
What you are talking about is what I call the Occam catastrophe in
my book. The resolution of the paradox has to be that the
random/white-noise filled OMs are in fact unable to be observed. In
order for the
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The mathematical Universal Dovetailer, the splashed universal Turing
Machine, the rational Mandelbrot set, or any creative sets in the
sense of Emil Post, does all computations. Really all, with Church
thesis. This is
On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
With just arithmetic, when we stop to postulate a primitive or
ontological material world, all primitive ad-hocness is removed, given
that the existing internal interpretations are all determined, with
their relative
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM, daddycay...@msn.com wrote:
On May 7, 1:42 am, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
So - going back to God then, let's maybe do an OPV on him/her/it
Hint:
If I can't do an OPV on God, then I'm not convinced that:
1. God is a person (100% convinced)
John,
Great question I am glad you asked it. I think I was driven to this
list because of big questions, especially those which most people seem
to believe are unanswerable. Questions such as: Where did this
universe come from? Why are we here and why am I me? Is there a God?
What is
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 of quantum mechanics that is non-linear,
non-unitary,
David Deutsch gives this convincing argument against a single world:
that one can't explain how quantum computers work without postulating
other universes.
The evidence for the multiverse, according to Deutsch, is equally
overwhelming. Admittedly, it's indirect, he says. But then, we can
detect
Right, I copied and pasted it and it must have lost the superscript.
Thanks for catching that.
Jason
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:48 PM, russell standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 05:40:09PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
Deutsch. If the number is 64, people can shut
I think these interviews provide a nice summary of his views:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ak5Lr3qkW0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mfbUhs2PVY
I remember seeing an interview with him on TV about a decade ago and
being very interested in his claim to be able to mathematically prove
the
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Do you believe if we create a computer in this physical
universe that it could be made conscious,
But a computer is never conscious, nor is a brain. Only a person is
conscious, and a computer or a brain can only make it
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Jun 2009, at 20:11, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Do you believe if we create a computer in this physical
universe that it could be made conscious
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:28 AM, kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On Thu Jun 4 1:15 , Bruno Marchal sent:
Very good answer, Kim,
Just a few comments. and then the sequel.
Exercice 4: does the real number square-root(2) belongs to {0, 1, 2,
3, ...}?
No idea what
Torngy,
How many numbers do you think exist between 0 and 1? Certainly not
only the ones we define, for then there would be a different quantity
of numbers between 1 and 2, or 2 and 3.
Jason
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Torgny Tholerus tor...@dsv.su.se wrote:
Brian Tenneson skrev:
Dr Nick,
I think part of what the mirror test attempts to establish is that the
animal recognizes the reflection as itself, therefore showing the animal has
a sense of itself as an independent actor within an environment as opposed
to simply an ego-less series of experiences.
If an irritant were
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:35 PM, soulcatcher☠ soulcatche...@gmail.comwrote:
Are you physicalist?
I just don't know.
All my everyday experience points towards physicalism: I'm a brain,
embodied in a physical body, embedded in a physical environment and
evolved via several billion year
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But if numbers can just exist, and matter can just exist, then why
can't conscious experiences just exist?
Numbers can just exist, and this is the last unsolvable mystery. Yet
we can explain (assuming comp) why
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Though in another way I think we already have a theory of everything a
theory can explain *ultimately* (which is *not even remotely* close to
everything, since the more you trascend a theory the bigger the
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 apparent ability to be in two
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/1/14 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com:
Given the ways ASSA has been defined, I think there are two possible
camps
within ASSA. One that believes there is a next moment for you to
experience, chosen
All,
I've created a basic survey regarding common topics of discussion on the
everything list. I think the results would be quite interesting. It is
available here:
http://freeonlinesurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=n32533346wr4fp0694426
If others come forward with a lot of suggestions for
, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
All,
I've created a basic survey regarding common topics of discussion on the
everything list. I think the results would be quite interesting. It is
available here:
http://freeonlinesurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:22 PM, russell standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:21:34AM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
If you don't believe they are you, that would imply when you put a pot of
coffee on the stove, you do so out of altruism. Since it only benefits
those
There have now been 26 responses. This will be the final time I collect the
results to send out, so for now the poll can be considered closed.
In summary:
65% of people believe who took the survey believe everything exists, with an
equal percentage accepting mathematical realism. Slightly
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
What caused it to exist?
Who said it needs a cause?
Why this reality as opposed to nothing? Given the principle of
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Brent Meeker meeke
Jack,
What you mentioned ending the existence of a suffering copy can be positive.
I am curious, would you consider ending any observer whose quality of life
was less than the average weighted (by number of copies) quality of life of
all observers everywhere? Consider this example:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Jack Mallah jackmal...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm replying to this bit seperately since Bruno touched on a different
issue than the others have. My reply to the main measure again '10 thread
will follow under the original title.
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Bruno Marchal
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 8:10 PM, soulcatcher☠ soulcatche...@gmail.comwrote:
I see a red rose. You see a red rose. Is your experience of redness
the same as mine?
1. Yes, they are identical.
2. They are different as long as neural organization of our brains is
slightly different, but you are
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 8:10 PM, soulcatcher☠ soulcatche...@gmail.comwrote:
I see a red rose. You see a red rose. Is your experience of redness
the same as mine?
1. Yes, they are identical.
2. They are different
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 8:10 PM, soulcatcher☠ soulcatche...@gmail.comwrote:
I see a red rose. You see a red rose. Is your experience of redness
the same as mine?
1. Yes, they are identical.
2. They are different as long as neural organization of our brains is
slightly different, but you are
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:05 AM, soulcatcher☠ soulcatche...@gmail.comwrote:
What would you say about this setup:
Computer Simulation-Physical Universe-Your Brain
That is to say, what if our physical universe were simulated in some
alien's computer instead of being some primitive physical
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:27 AM, soulcatcher☠ soulcatche...@gmail.comwrote:
Do you see the meaning of physical laws being somehow different from the
programmed laws that simulate an environment?
Yes, I feel that simulated mind is not identical to the real one.
Simulation is only the extension
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:10 PM, soulcatcher☠ soulcatche...@gmail.comwrote:
I think those simulated persons would be conscious.
The possibility of superintelligence that creates worlds in its dreams
kinda freaks me out :)
Carl Sagan in Cosmos said that in the Hindu religion, there are an
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 8:10 PM, soulcatcher☠ soulcatche...@gmail.comwrote:
Let me explain with example. Suppose, that you:
1. simulate my brain in a computer program, so we can say that this
program represents my brain in your symbols.
2. simulate a red rose
3. feed rose data into my
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
UDA = Universal Dovetailer Argument. It is an argument which is supposed to
show that if we take seriously the idea that we are digitally emulable,
then we have to take seriously the idea that physics is a branch of
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Feb 2010, at 15:49, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 03 Feb 2010, at 03:00, Jason Resch wrote:
Is your point that with addition, multiplication
On the many-worlds FAQ:
http://www.anthropic-principle.com/preprints/manyworlds.html
It states that many-worlds implies that worlds split rather than multiple,
identical, pre-existing worlds differentiate:
Q19 Do worlds differentiate or split?
-
Can we regard the
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:07 PM, rmiller rmil...@legis.com wrote:
To me, the Many-Minds interpretation requires significant changes in
frames of reference. Suppose you view a particular world out of many as a
2-dimensional surface. Layers of surfaces comprise the local environment of
a
On Feb 25, 2010, at 1:56 AM, Charles charlesrobertgood...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Feb 23, 8:42 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
I think
it's an example of the radiation arrow of time making a time-reversed
process impossible - or maybe just vanishingly improbable. Bruce
On Feb 25, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Charles charlesrobertgood...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Feb 26, 6:38 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
One approach to the problem that I heard regarding the arrow of time
relates to the fact that storing information (either by the brain or
in a DNA
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Charles charlesrobertgood...@gmail.comwrote:
On Feb 23, 9:02 am, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
But recent analysis produced by neuroimaging technologies has revealed
something quite remarkable: a great deal of meaningful activity is occurring
Hello Skeletori,
Welcome to the list. I enjoy your comments and rationalization regarding
personal identity and of why we should consider I to be the universe /
multiverse / or the everything. I have some comments regarding the
technological singularity below.
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM,
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Skeletori sami.per...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think anyone would argue that the amount knowledge possessed by
our
civilization is not increasing. If the physical laws of this universe
are
deterministic then there is some algorithm describing the process
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Skeletori sami.per...@gmail.com wrote:
I think for the hardware design to be so great it took a 10 billion years
to
find the next speedup, the design would have to be close to the best
possible hardware that could be built given the physical laws.
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 8:40 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Skeletori sami.per...@gmail.com wrote:
My hope and wish is that by this time, wealth and the economy as we know
it
will be obsolete. In a virtual world, where anyone can do or experience
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:13 PM, silky michaelsli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 5:50 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
In an uploaded state you could spend all day eating from an unlimited
buffet
of any food you could think of (and more) and get neither full
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:01 PM, rexallen...@gmail.com
rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's assume that our best scientific theories tell us something true
about the way the world *really* is, in an ontological sense. And
further, for simplicity, let's assume a deterministic interpretation
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You have added the UTM and its variants to the pile. Any of these could be
just as right as you think COMP is.
I have no idea about the truth status of Digital Mechanism, except nothing
in nature suggest it to be
Rabbi Rabbit,
Forgive me if I missed this elsewhere in your posts, but is there the
assumption somewhere that the name of God is 22 Hebrew letters long? If
that is the case and some letters may be missing and others repeated, then
you are correct about there being 22^22 combinations. If every
The conventional view of time is that only one point in time is real, the
present, and that that time flows at a certain rate. People believe that in
order to experience the flow of time, the past moment must disappear, and a
new moment must become real, but this can be logically shown to be
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Allen Kallenbach
allenkallenb...@yahoo.cawrote:
Considering this, can consciousness be Turing emulable? That is, can
a Turing machine integrate information? I want to expand my question here,
but I don't have the knowledge to do so without distracting
and
their behavior remains the same. That isn't true with the Mar's rover,
whose software must evaluate the pattern across the memory locations to
identify and avoid objects. You cannot separate the mar's rover into
components which that behave identically in isolation.
On 7/23/2010 12:15 AM, Jason
2010/7/23 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
I am very familiar with Tononi's definition of information integration,
but if it is something that neurons do it is certainly something computers
can do as well.
Sorry, I meant to say that I am *not *very familiar...
Jason
--
You received
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Allen allenkallenb...@yahoo.ca wrote:
On 7/24/2010 12:55 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
In the case of a digital camera, you could say the photodectors each map
directly to memory locations and so they can be completely separated and
their behavior remains the same
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Mark Buda her...@acm.org wrote:
Numbers exist not in any physical sense but in the same sense that any
idea exists - they exist in the sense that minds exist that believe
logical propositions about them. They exist because minds believe
logical propositions
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:
On 7/29/2010 10:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Mark Buda her...@acm.org wrote:
Numbers exist not in any physical sense but in the same sense that any
idea exists - they exist
David,
Your question reminds me of the phrase (I wish I could recall the source)
Who pushes who around inside the brain? Is it the lowest level
reductionist view of microscopic particles or do the macroscopic brain
states end up causally affecting microscopic states of individual neurons
and
Rex,
Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the source)
where someone asked Who pushes who around inside the brain?, meaning is it
the matter that causes thought to move around a certain way, or is it the
opposite? The looped hierarchies described by Hofstadter, if present,
Ronald,
Right, I think that is what he implied and it is something I agree with.
There is only so much that can be learned about this universe, and physical
exploration by locomotion or even observation is limited in many ways.
Rather than moving around to other places to see what can be, with
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
But I also deny that mechanism can account for consciousness (except
by fiat declaration that it does).
Rex,
I am interested in your reasoning against mechanism. Assume there is were
an] mechanical brain composed of
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:50 PM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
Jason:
I see what you are saying up at our level of understanding, I do not
know how to present that in a technically convincing matter.
Ronald
Which message in
even if real. Bruno's
reality is equally hard to convincing present.
Ronald
On Nov 26, 12:02 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:50 PM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Jason:
I see what you are saying up at our
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com
wrote:
But I also deny that mechanism can account for consciousness
Ronald,
There is also a thread with some other good justifications for the belief in
everything:
https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/6c77322d47582932/16f35cf51ed74d1c?lnk=gstq=wei+dai#16f35cf51ed74d1c
Jason
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Jason Resch jasonre
Rex,
You're mention of whose definition was closer to that of the common person
intrigued me. I decided to look up what some dictionaries said on the
matter:
From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+will
dictionary.com
–noun
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com
wrote:
Information is just a catch-all term for what is being
represented
arguments. Tell me if you have a problem with the subjective (first
person) indeterminacy. Thanks.
Bruno
On Nov 26, 12:02 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:50 PM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Jason:
I see what you
Tegmark published a paper which largely refutes the idea that neurons use
quantum interference to perform any useful computation:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9907009
In short, the brain is far to hot and uncontrolled to maintain decoherence
for the time periods involved in neural processes.
Ron,
I think the path to seeing the mind as a program is easier in this way:
1. It's not what the parts of the brain are made of its how they function
which determines behavior
2. This leads to the idea of multiple realizability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_realizability (Brains can be
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:57 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
Jason:
I do not think a neutron take more trhan a finite amount of voltage
to be able to fire. I do wonder if merely replacing the bio parts by
processing hardware, do you lose the part of the complexity of the
mind?
/
Life_Support_(Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine)
Ronald
On Dec 16, 11:39 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:57 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Jason:
I do not think a neutron take more trhan
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But then a digital machine cannot see the difference between its brain
emulated by a physical device, of by the true existence of the proof of the
Sigma_1 relation which exists independently of us in arithmetic. Some
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 6:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Dec 2010, at 03:15, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But then a digital machine cannot see the difference between its brain
emulated by a physical
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Saturday, September 29, 2012 1:41:25 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
But
leaving that obvious fact aside, the other obvious fact is that
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 2:04 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Dear john:
2012/10/4 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com Wrote:
Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid tinkerer, it had
over
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 4:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 2:04 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Dear john:
2012/10/4 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 8:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 4:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/29/2012 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Indeed. I think 17 is intrinsically a prime number in all possible
realities.
It is not a reality in a world that only has 16 objects in it. I can
come up with
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 10/6/2012 1:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/29/2012 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Indeed. I think 17 is intrinsically a prime
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 10/7/2012 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Oct 2012, at 21:27, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/6/2012 2:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Oct 2012, at 17:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/6/2012 4:25 AM,
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Stephen, Bruno, and Jason,
Do I understand correctly that comp requires a relative measure on the set
of all partial computable functions and that for Steven Both abstractions,
such as numbers and
http://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/10/smoothlifel/
Jason
--
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
Craig,
Congratulations. I think the episode is very good. To me, your ideas come
though a lot more clearly in this media than in text.
Jason
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Well, local community TV anyways.
Jose is a great host, producer, and
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/15/2012 7:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
Nick Bostrum, a philosopher at Oxford University wrote an interesting
paper on this subject:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
The following is from the
This must be what the Heisenberg compensators do in star trek. :-)
Jason
On 10/18/12, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Dan,
I think the implication for MWI is that such weak measurements do not
cause the universe to split into a different version for each possible
quantum state. I
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi John,
On 20 Oct 2012, at 23:16, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
especially in my identification as responding to relations.
Now the Self? IT certainly refers to a more sophisticated level of
thinking, more so than the
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Oct 2012, at 19:29, John Clark wrote:
Well I don't know about you but I don't think my consciousness was there
before Evolution figured out how to make brains, I believe this because I
can't seem to remember
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:46 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I stopped reading after your proof of the existence of a new type of
indeterminacy never seen before because the proof was in error, so there
was no point
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Bruno,
My own subjectivity is 1p. I don't believe a computer can
have consciousness, but suppose we let the computer have
consciousness as well.
Let a descriptor be 3p. Let my consciousness = 1p
But the
On Oct 24, 2012, at 6:33 AM, Roger Cloughrclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Jason Resch
No, have proven solipsism.
What?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/24/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Jason
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:21:23 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/23/2012 6:33 PM, Max Gron wrote:
On Sunday, November 28, 2010 5:19:08 AM UTC+10:30, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Jason
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Oct 2012, at 18:42, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi John,
On 20 Oct 2012, at 23:16, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
especially in my identification
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:04 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote
I think you are missing something. It is a problem that I noticed after
watching the movie The Prestige
In my opinion The Prestige is the best
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 7:58 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/24/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
That's right. The meaning, the what is represented, is given by
interaction (including speech) with the environment (including others). So
only a computer with the ability
On Oct 24, 2012, at 9:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/24/2012 6:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:04 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote
I think you are missing
1 - 100 of 2375 matches
Mail list logo
