RE: problem of size '10

2010-02-14 Thread Stephen P. King
Hi Jack, On reading the first page of your paper a thought occurred to me. What actually happens in the case of progressive Alzheimer's disease is a bit different from the idea that I get from the discussion. It could be that there is a problem with the unstated premise that

RE: On the computability of consciousness

2010-02-16 Thread Stephen P. King
Hi, Is there a problem with the idea that 3-p can be derived from some combinatorics of many interacting 1-p's? Is there a reason why we keep trying to derive 1-p from 3-p? Onward! Stephen -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com

RE: Does the plants quantum computations?

2010-02-19 Thread Stephen P. King
Hi Bruno, Tegmark's argument completely ignores the roles that structure can provide, among other things. His paper has been the modern equivalent to the infamous papers back in the 20th century that proved that heavier than air flight was impossible. People like him are a net negative

RE: Does the plants quantum computations?

2010-02-20 Thread Stephen P. King
, Stephen P. King wrote: Tegmark's argument completely ignores the roles that structure can provide, among other things. You may elaborate. I can make sense of this in quantum topology, but this needs huge magnetic field. I do dream that metallic atoms well disposed could

RE: Epiphenomena?

2010-02-21 Thread Stephen P. King
@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Does the plants quantum computations? Hi Stephen, On 20 Feb 2010, at 19:52, Stephen P. King wrote: snip I like that it does not ignore consciousness as it puts logic in its core notions, but there still something missing. There is no necessity

RE: On the computability of consciousness

2010-02-24 Thread Stephen P. King
the why this and not some other question. Is there a definitive book or article on the 1-p and 3-p aspect? Onward! Stephen P. King -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rex Allen Sent: Wednesday, February

RE: On the computability of consciousness

2010-02-25 Thread Stephen P. King
, in the sense of its properties, of an intersection of many 1-p's. All that we can know of 3-p is that it could exist, but can say nothing about its properties. Onward! Stephen P. King -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post

RE: Free will: Wrong entry.

2010-03-11 Thread Stephen P. King
there has to be some reason why I experience this particular 1-universe rather than some other. I realize that this puts me in a precarious position. ;) Onward! Stephen P. King From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno

Health Care as a Human Right - Is Universal Health Care a Human Right?

2010-03-15 Thread Stephen P. King
the right to control the behavior of any individual and that any right of self-determination is abrogated. Any comment is welcome. Onward! Stephen P. King -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post

RE: Health Care as a Human Right - Is Universal Health Care a Human Right?

2010-03-15 Thread Stephen P. King
of the consequences of this entire line of reasoning without having to get into the subjective notion of morals. Onward! Stephen P. King -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou Sent: Monday

RE: Health Care as a Human Right - Is Universal Health Care a Human Right?

2010-03-15 Thread Stephen P. King
. Onward! Stephen P. King From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Brent Meeker Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 3:25 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Health Care as a Human Right - Is Universal Health Care

RE: Zombies (was: Jack's partial brain paper)

2010-03-17 Thread Stephen P. King
behaving exactly as a “real person would” yet having no consciousness or 1-p reality of their own. What am I missing here? Onward! Stephen P. King From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, March 17

RE: which Multiverse?

2010-04-27 Thread Stephen P. King
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2838 - Release Date: 04/27/10 02:27:00

RE: Fred Hoyle's story

2010-07-17 Thread Stephen P. King
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.839 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3011 - Release Date: 07/17/10 02:35:00

RE: 3-Brain - 1-Mind?

2010-08-03 Thread Stephen P. King
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3047 - Release Date: 08/03/10 02:35:00

RE: 3-Brain - 1-Mind?

2010-08-03 Thread Stephen P. King
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3049 - Release Date: 08/03/10 10:22:00

RE: 3-Brain - 1-Mind?

2010-08-05 Thread Stephen P. King
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3052 - Release Date: 08/05/10 02:35:00

FW: 3-Brain - 1-Mind?

2010-08-10 Thread Stephen P. King
Resending. From: Stephen P. King [mailto:stephe...@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 4:17 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: 3-Brain - 1-Mind? Hi Bruno, Thanks for pointing this out to me (again?)! I think that what I have in mind in a bit more

RE: FW: 3-Brain - 1-Mind?

2010-08-11 Thread Stephen P. King
framework to use in physics that I have found. I have tried to do this with the notion of bisimulation, but I have been unable to find the right wording to explain this idea, I have dropped back to more basic ideas. Onward! Stephen P. King -Original Message- From: everything-list

RE: What's wrong with this?

2010-08-26 Thread Stephen P. King
Dear David, Very well said! Let me add a quote from Carlo Rovelli (in the context of discussions of the notion of observation in QM) found in Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics? (ed. Elitzur, Dolev and Kolenda): My main suggestion is to forbid ourselves to use the point of view of God. Do not

RE: What's wrong with this?

2010-08-28 Thread Stephen P. King
Hi Folks, Excellent topic and comments! Naturalism does seem to be a natural condition of humans given their predilection for supernatural or supranatural explanations of events that have no simplistic explanations, i.e. in terms of their common every day experiences which are

RE: A superposition in QM is just due to a choice of basis?

2010-08-28 Thread Stephen P. King
in the symbolic representations of the eigenvalues, eigenvectors and eigenfunctions, no? What does this represent? Onward! Stephen P. King From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Brent Meeker Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 1:42 PM

RE: What's wrong with this?

2010-09-04 Thread Stephen P. King
Onward! Stephen P. King -- 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...@googlegroups.com

RE: What's wrong with this?

2010-09-09 Thread Stephen P. King
SIENA paper. My only comment on it is that I wish you would elaborate more on the diamond^alpha t aspect because that is where plurality obtains. Onward! Stephen P. King -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno

RE: What's wrong with this?

2010-09-10 Thread Stephen P. King
generate the convexity. I know that I lack much of the sophisticated knowledge needed to do this quickly, so my work is very slow. Onward! Stephen P. King -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email

RE: What's wrong with this?

2010-09-12 Thread Stephen P. King
, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Bruno, -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 11:16 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What's wrong with this? On 09 Sep

Re: Stone duality

2010-09-12 Thread Stephen P. King
of measuring change has vanished. Change in-it-self as eternal Becoming exists nonetheless. Onward! Stephen P. King -- 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

RE: What's wrong with this?

2010-09-15 Thread Stephen P. King
, September 14, 2010 9:40 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What's wrong with this? On 12 Sep 2010, at 21:43, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Bruno, -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

RE: Definiteness of Meaning (was: A superposition in QM is just due to a choice of basis?)

2010-09-18 Thread Stephen P. King
, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Bret,             Could you elaborate on this point and/or point me to a good discussion of it? From what I have studied so far there is no solution to the measurement problem so far in terms of an explanation of the way that the choice

RE: What's wrong with this?

2010-09-23 Thread Stephen P. King
Hi Bruno, Thank you for your kind considerations and comments. I will interleave my replies below. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:44 AM To:

RE: What's wrong with this?

2010-09-26 Thread Stephen P. King
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 3:33 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What's wrong with this? Stephen P. King wrote: Umm, I had no idea that this would be so difficult to understand! I am claiming

As to the problem of tensor products for quantum logic

2010-09-27 Thread Stephen P. King
enough coherent for allowing concurrency, then you have refuted DM. but given the results discussed here I think that there might be some way to wiggle out of this by attacking the notion of separated. Onward! Stephen P. King -- You received this message because you are subscribed

A paper for your Comments

2010-09-29 Thread Stephen P. King
A crude sketch of a computational model of Interaction. Stephen Paul King 9/29/2010 Might it be possible to model the content of 1st person experience as a computationally generated simulation? We can point to the body of work by David Deutsch, such as that found in his book The Fabric of

RE: As to the problem of tensor products for quantum logic

2010-10-01 Thread Stephen P. King
of separate systems is valid to some finite approximation. I will get back to this when we talk about the problem of matter (and space!) that you mentioned in your reply to my paper post. Onward! Stephen P. King -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com

RE: A paper for your Comments

2010-10-01 Thread Stephen P. King
@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 2:22 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: A paper for your Comments On 30 Sep 2010, at 04:25, Stephen P. King wrote: A crude sketch of a computational model

Re: Forget Zombies, Let's Talk Torture

2012-09-28 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/27/2012 11:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Are you saying that you expect replacing someone's brain would be no more problematic than replacing any other body part? Craig Hi Craig, I kinda have to side with Stathis a bit here. The problem that you are hinging

Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment

2012-09-28 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/28/2012 12:56 AM, John Clark wrote: Because Evolution couldn't figure out how to make a microchip, but people can. Isn't this really just an evasion of the point that evolution made people so that it could make micro-chips? Evolution is ether universal or it is a bad and not even

Re: Epiphenomenalism

2012-09-29 Thread Stephen P. King
HEY! It's nice to see other people noticing the same thing that I have been complaining about. Thank you, Brent! On 9/29/2012 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I *can* know the exact position of an electron in my brain, even if this will make me totally ignorant on its impulsions. I can

Re: Epiphenomenalism

2012-09-29 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/29/2012 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Sep 2012, at 12:21, Stephen P. King wrote: HEY! It's nice to see other people noticing the same thing that I have been complaining about. Thank you, Brent! On 9/29/2012 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I *can* know the exact position

Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment

2012-09-30 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/30/2012 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Organisms can utilize inorganic minerals, sure. Salt would be a better example as we can actually eat it in its pure form and we actually need to eat it. But that's

Re: Einstein and space

2012-09-30 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/30/2012 7:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King With his relativity principle, Einstein showed us that there is no such thing as space, because all distances are relational, relative, not absolute. The Michelson朚orley experiment also proved that there is no ether

Re: Epiphenomenalism

2012-09-30 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/30/2012 8:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Leibniz would not go along with epiphenomena because the matter that materialists base their beliefs in is not real, so it can't emanate consciousness. Leibniz did not believe in matter in the same way that atheists today do

Re: Numbers and other inhabitants of Platonia are also inhabitants of monads

2012-09-30 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/30/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I'm still trying to figure out how numbers and ideas fit into Leibniz's metaphysics. Little is written about this issue, so I have to rely on what Leibniz says otherwise about monads. Previously I noted that numbers could not be

Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment

2012-09-30 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/30/2012 8:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Only life evolves, and steel claws, being made of steel, are not alive, at least in the ordinary sense (Leibniz believed that everything in the universe is alive). So what you propose couldn't happen. The unstated assumption here is that organism

Re: Pre-established harmony comp in relation to Platonia and Contingia

2012-09-30 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/30/2012 8:43 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Thanks for the very interesting video. Hi Alberto, I agree. Roger Penrose is one of my favorite theorists. Concerning Platonia and Contingia, there are much to say if we introduce natural selection, the only well know creative process.

Re: Forget Zombies, Let's Talk Torture

2012-09-30 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/30/2012 2:03 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/30/2012 3:18 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I don't doubt that initial experiments would not yield ideal results. Neural prostheses would initially be used for people with disabilities. Cochlear implants are better than being deaf, but not as good as

Re: Evolution outshines reason by far

2012-09-30 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/30/2012 2:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/30/2012 6:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Whoever said that does not know what he says: There are great differences between evolutionary designs and rational design, rational designs are, well, rational, but evolutionary designs are idiotic. Mother

Re: Evolution outshines reason by far

2012-09-30 Thread Stephen P. King
Hi John, Thank you for you wise remarks. ;-) I hope we can weed out the errors On 9/30/2012 5:10 PM, John Mikes wrote: Dear Stephen (Brent, Alberto, plus plus plus) with a discussion so long that my arthritic fingers stopped scrolling down - on EVOLUTION - back and forth. I resent the

Re: How many of the Fortune 400 are political liberals?

2012-09-30 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/30/2012 5:34 PM, meekerdb wrote: LOL, where did you find that definition? Almost all people at the top are liberals. Really? How many of the Fortune 400 are political liberals...three?...four? You might like to look at some demographic studies ... Liberal with others peoples money...

Re: How many of the Fortune 400 are political liberals?

2012-09-30 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/30/2012 5:51 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/30/2012 5:34 PM, meekerdb wrote: LOL, where did you find that definition? Almost all people at the top are liberals. Really? How many of the Fortune 400 are political liberals...three?...four? Hi Brent, I was thinking more along

Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment

2012-09-30 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/30/2012 7:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 9/30/2012 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Organisms can utilize inorganic minerals

Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment

2012-09-30 Thread Stephen P. King
On 9/30/2012 8:07 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/30/2012 4:56 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/30/2012 7:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 9/30/2012 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment

2012-10-01 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/1/2012 4:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The whole *is* very often more than the parts. Non Löbian entities can create/emulate the Löbian entities. That is why we can take a very simple whole as ontology, be it a tiny arithmetic without induction axioms, or a differential equation (like

Re: Numbers and other inhabitants of Platonia are also inhabitants ofmonads

2012-10-01 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/1/2012 10:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Good idea, but unfortunately monads are not numbers, numbers will now guide them or replace them. Monads have to be associated with corporeal bodies down here in contingia, where crap happens. Hi Roger, I agree, monads

Re: structural complexity

2012-10-01 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/1/2012 1:00 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Physiological realities are mechanistic. Biologists and doctors are mechanists. Even if you claim that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts that does not mean that if yoyu replace the parts the whole will stop working. Yes. Anti-mechanist

Re: The Good, the Bad and the weirdly computable

2012-10-01 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/1/2012 1:28 PM, Roger Clough wrote: ROGER: Objects can be physical and also infinitely divisible, but L considered this infinite divisibility to disqualify an object to be real because there's no end to the process, one wouldn't end up with something to refer to. Hi Roger, This

Re: structural complexity

2012-10-02 Thread Stephen P. King
is how much of one's sense of self and memories can be carried across. Function does not seem to do this alone as it is completely independent of the physical body. On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 10/1/2012 1:00

Re: structural complexity

2012-10-03 Thread Stephen P. King
that is occurring now is teleportation, just in very small distances. The environment is both measuring us and reconstructing in the next location. On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 10/2/2012 5:57 PM, John Mikes wrote

A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory

2012-10-04 Thread Stephen P. King
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ3Z-Y99wW0 -- Onward! Stephen -- 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

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word!

2012-10-05 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/5/2012 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger, Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not. They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of the mind-body problem. It is still

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory

2012-10-05 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/5/2012 12:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Many thanks, Stephan ! I should have known it before, but double-aspect and/or dual-aspect theories

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussingthe dual aspect theory

2012-10-05 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/5/2012 2:22 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Deacon's 600 page book (http://www.amazon.com/Incomplete-Nature-Mind-Emerged-Matter/dp/0393049914) flushes out the philosophical outlines of Nagel's much shorter book (http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception). I found a

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video discussing the dual aspect theory

2012-10-05 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/5/2012 2:41 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Hi Stephen, Yeah, I was wandering there a bit. Just still not used to the irony of altered states being used in an argument that leaves unsaid the elephant in the room. But I guess if we want something with set and point, this might also

Consciousness and NWF sets

2012-10-05 Thread Stephen P. King
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h--Gei6yYvM Pay attention at time 5:10 and on! -- Onward! Stephen -- 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

A must read paper

2012-10-05 Thread Stephen P. King
Hi Folks, http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.4339.pdf Mathematical Foundations of Consciousness Willard L. Miranker http://arxiv.org/find/math/1/au:+Miranker_W/0/1/0/all/0/1,Gregg J. Zuckerman http://arxiv.org/find/math/1/au:+Zuckerman_G/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 23 Oct 2008)

Re: Epiphenomenalism

2012-10-05 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/6/2012 1:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 9/29/2012 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Indeed. I think 17 is intrinsically a prime number in all possible realities

Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word!

2012-10-06 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/6/2012 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Oct 2012, at 19:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/5/2012 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger, Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers

Re: A must read paper

2012-10-06 Thread Stephen P. King
(?) definition of the paradoxical set. I don't know that Cantor drew any attention to that set, thus he doesn't get credit for it. m On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Oct 2012, at 02:37, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi

Re: Epiphenomenalism

2012-10-06 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/6/2012 10:40 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 10/6/2012 1:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe

Re: On Zuckerman's paper

2012-10-07 Thread Stephen P. King
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, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Oct 2012, at 09:35, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Bruno

Re: On Zuckerman's paper

2012-10-07 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/7/2012 5:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Stephen, I'm not sure that there is any real disagreement between your view and Bruno's. It seems more to be a language thing, if anything. When Bruno refers to a physics, he means the appearance of a physical world from the perspective of observers.

Re: Conjoined Twins

2012-10-08 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/8/2012 12:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: May I suggest that entangled BECs in their brains may allow for more or less instant communication of thoughts, but that one or the other may be able to disentangle and have independent thoughts, or have independent thoughts that are instantly

Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-08 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/8/2012 1:13 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: except from /The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet/ A response to David Deutsch’s recent article on AGI October 8, 2012 by Ben Goertzel So in this view, the main missing ingredient in AGI so far is “cognitive synergy”: the fitting-together of

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-08 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/8/2012 5:39 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 01:13:35PM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet A response to David Deutsch’s recent article on AGI October 8, 2012 by Ben Goertzel Thanks for posting this, Richard. I was thinking of

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-08 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/8/2012 7:37 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 06:49:12PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the evolutionary transformations? Its

Re: On Zuckerman's paper

2012-10-08 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/8/2012 10:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com mailto:multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Stephen, Bruno, and Jason, Do I understand correctly that comp requires a relative measure on the set of all

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-09 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the evolutionary transformations? It's probably because AI's

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-09 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/9/2012 12:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/9/2012 4:22 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track

Re: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet

2012-10-09 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/9/2012 12:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Oct 2012, at 13:22, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity

Re: The little genius.

2012-10-10 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/10/2012 1:02 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: A very sad news is that Eric Vandenbussche died. It is the guy I called here often the little genius, who solved notably the first open problem in my PhD thesis (as you can consult on my url). That was a *very* nice guy, a friend, also, an ally,

Re: Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complex computations ?

2012-10-16 Thread Stephen P. King
Hi Roger, On 10/16/2012 7:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complex computations ? No! The short answer is that I am proposing that : 1) Penrose's noncomputability position is equivalent to the position that consciousness emerges at such a

Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of as if ratherthanis

2012-10-16 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/16/2012 8:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:02:44 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: There is of course the idea that the universe is actually a simulation but that is more controversial. A tempting idea until we question what it is a simulation of?

Re: Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complex computations ?

2012-10-16 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/16/2012 8:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Computation is an overly simplified emergent property of sense. If you could have computation without sense, then there would be no consciousness. Craig Hi Craig, I agree, you would have the zombie without sense. By definition! -- Onward!

Re: Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complex computations ?

2012-10-16 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/16/2012 8:33 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Roger, Philosophers such as Lucas, Hofstadter and Chalmers as well as Penrose and Godel suggest that consciousness may be due to incompleteness itself allowing for emergence... Seehttp://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf Richard Hi Richard, I only

Re: Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complex computations ?

2012-10-16 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/16/2012 8:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Computation is an overly simplified emergent property of sense. If you could have computation without sense, then there would be no consciousness. Craig Could you provide

Re: Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complexcomputations ?

2012-10-16 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/16/2012 9:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Thanks. My mistake was to say that P's position is that consciousness, arises at (or above ?) the level of noncomputability. He just seems to say that intuiton does. But that just seems to be a conjecture of his. ugh, rclo

Re: Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complexcomputations ?

2012-10-16 Thread Stephen P. King
...@verizon.net Hi Stephen P. King Thanks. My mistake was to say that P's position is that consciousness, arises at (or above ?) the level of noncomputability. He just seems to say that intuiton does. But that just seems to be a conjecture of his. ugh, rclo...@verizon.net

Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of as ifratherthanis

2012-10-16 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/16/2012 9:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Oct 2012, at 16:14, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg After looking at how computers make choices-- whether they are free or whatever-- I now see that my previous position that computers have no intelligence was not exactly right, because

Re: Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complexcomputations ?

2012-10-16 Thread Stephen P. King
and Godel, among others ;) 2012/10/16 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 10/16/2012 9:36 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Magic emergence from magic enough complexity has been advocated for almost anything. Most of the time as an excuse for not saying

Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of as if ratherthanis

2012-10-16 Thread Stephen P. King
Hey John, We get it! You are just making sure that when the Singularity http://singularity.org/what-is-the-singularity/ happens that the AI Overlords will consider you a useful pet. :-[ On 10/16/2012 11:55 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com

Re: Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complex computations ?

2012-10-16 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/16/2012 2:17 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 9:08:49 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 10/16/2012 8:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Craig Weinbergwhats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Computation is an overly

Re: Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complexcomputations ?

2012-10-16 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/16/2012 2:42 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/16/2012 7:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Alberto, OK, I am officially confused by your statements. You previously wrote: Magic emergence from magic enough complexity has been advocated for almost anything. and now you suggest

Re: Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complex computations ?

2012-10-16 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/16/2012 3:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I agree 100%. All 3p related concepts are abstractions constructed from many different 1p's. The idea of Reality is a good example of this and it is why I define Reality as what which is incontrovertible for some collection N (N

Re: Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complexcomputations ?

2012-10-16 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/16/2012 4:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/16/2012 12:41 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/16/2012 2:42 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/16/2012 7:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Alberto, OK, I am officially confused by your statements. You previously wrote: Magic emergence from magic enough

Re: Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complexcomputations ?

2012-10-16 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/16/2012 4:31 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:19:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 10/16/2012 12:41 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/16/2012 2:42 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/16/2012 7:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Alberto, OK, I am

Re: Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complexcomputations ?

2012-10-16 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/16/2012 5:26 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:41:59 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Sorry Craig but http://s33light.org/SEEES did not make any sense as to how sense underlies consciousness and comp. In fact you seem to contradict that claim: I.G., These

Re: Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complexcomputations ?

2012-10-16 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/16/2012 10:03 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 6:48:51 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 10/16/2012 4:31 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:19:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 10/16/2012 12:41 PM, Stephen P. King wrote

Re: Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complexcomputations ?

2012-10-16 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/16/2012 10:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 8:42:16 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 10/16/2012 5:26 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:41:59 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Sorry Craig but http://s33light.org/SEEES did

Re: Computational Autopoetics 1

2012-10-17 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/17/2012 2:07 AM, Russell Standish wrote: The self is directly related to the Dx = xx trick, for me. The Dx=xx trick is about self-replication. Of course entities with a sense of the self/other distinction needn't replicate (eg certain robots). Hi, I have some papers and list posts

Re: Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complexcomputations ?

2012-10-17 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/17/2012 4:12 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Life may support mathematics. Hi Alberto, OK, we can think of Life, in a very abstract sense, as the generator of variety and pattern, so that might work. This makes Life = God! Life is a computation devoted to making guesses about the

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >