Bruno,
Just coming at this after not thinking about it much. Sometimes
that's an advantage, but sometimes it results in forgetting pertinent
points that were understood before. So if it's the latter, I hope you
forgive me.
Taking two of your statements and trying to synthesize them, first
Hi, Bardia. Welcome, although I haven't participated much here myself
lately. I've been too busy following my heart, although these
discussions also do touch on something down deep for me. I'll comment
briefly off the top of my head, but hopefully from my heart.
On Jan 23, 4:23 pm,
The effects of have clones is interesting, though, regardless of the
sapping strength notion. You would have reason to worry about being
killed if there were clones and then a shell game was played with
you being mixed up with the clones, and then all of the yous were
killed except one. All of
But of course you would worry just as much if the clone were replaced
by a zombie... I guess that gets back to the distinction between
first person and third person.
On Feb 11, 9:05 pm, Tom Caylor daddycay...@msn.com wrote:
The effects of have clones is interesting, though, regardless
On Jul 5, 9:44 pm, thermo thermo therm...@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
I am not very much into string theory but i liked the paper, it was
pretty much self-contained for me, a computer-scientist, .
On the other side, It seems that the main conclusions are extracted
from the Löwenheim–Skolem
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 23-oct.-06, à 15:58, David Nyman a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Here I disagree, or if you want make that distinction (introduced by
Peter), you can sum up the conclusion of the UD Argument by:
Computationalism entails COMP.
Bruno,
1Z wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
David and 1Z:
How is exploring the Mandelbrot set through computation any different
than exploring subatomic particles through computation (needed to
successively approach the accuracies needed for the collisions in the
linear accelerator
1Z wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
1Z wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
David and 1Z:
How is exploring the Mandelbrot set through computation any different
than exploring subatomic particles through computation (needed to
successively approach the accuracies needed
Brent Meeker wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
1Z wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
1Z wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
David and 1Z:
How is exploring the Mandelbrot set through computation any different
than exploring subatomic particles through computation (needed to
successively approach
Brent Meeker wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
If you died today and just by accident a possible next
moment of consciousness was generated by a computer a trillion years in
the
future, then ipso facto you would find yourself a trillion years in the
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 25-oct.-06, à 13:57, 1Z a écrit :
Brent Meeker wrote:
It's even more than seeing where axioms and rules of inference lead.
Given some axioms and rules of inference the only truths you can
reach are those of the form It is true that axioms =
1Z wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
Again, the kind of formalism that says
everything can be brought under a single
formal scheme (the Hilbertian
programme) is different from the kind
that says mathematical truths are dependent on axioms,
and different truths will be arrived at under
1Z wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
1Z wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
Again, the kind of formalism that says
everything can be brought under a single
formal scheme (the Hilbertian
programme) is different from the kind
that says mathematical truths are dependent on axioms
1Z wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le Jeudi 26 Octobre 2006 18:02, 1Z a écrit :
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
But c breaks down into:
c1) I experience something coherent that obeys the laws of
physics
and
c2) I experience wild and crazy harry Potter stuff.
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 26-oct.-06, à 17:52, 1Z a écrit :
No, I am just asking. I have even
come up with formulations like real in the sense
that I am real which avoid begging any questions about what
kind of reality I have.
Ah OK. I guess that is the RITSIAR. I
Brent Meeker wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
Bruno has tried to introduce us before to the concept of universes or
worlds made from logic, bottom up (a la constructing elephants). These
universes can be consistent or inconsistent.
But approaching it from the empirical side (top down rather
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 26-oct.-06, à 21:11, 1Z a écrit :
If your definition of truth is limited to logical inference given a
certain set of axioms and inference rules, then what are we trying to
do on the Everything List?
That's *mathematical* truth.
It is not.
Tom Caylor wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
Bruno has tried to introduce us before to the concept of universes or
worlds made from logic, bottom up (a la constructing elephants). These
universes can be consistent or inconsistent.
But approaching it from
Tom Caylor wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
Bruno has tried to introduce us before to the concept of universes or
worlds made from logic, bottom up (a la constructing elephants). These
universes can be consistent or inconsistent
Tom Caylor wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 27-oct.-06, à 13:04, Quentin Anciaux a écrit :
Hi Stathis,
Le Vendredi 27 Octobre 2006 12:16, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Here is another thought experiment. You are watching an object moving
against a stationary background
Brent Meeker wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
Bruno has tried to introduce us before to the concept of universes or
worlds made from logic, bottom up (a la constructing elephants). These
universes can be consistent or inconsistent.
But approaching
Brent Meeker wrote:
An excellent essay. I agree with almost everything you wrote; and you put it
very well. Would you mind if I cross posted it to Vic Stenger's AVOID-L
mailing list. You can check out the list here:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/
Although Victor Stenger
Brent Meeker wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
This cannot be explained away by
faith in the sense that one can have faith in the gravity god or a
deist god (because no empirical finding counts for or against such
beliefs): rather, it comes down to a matter of
Brent Meeker wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit :
Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL
I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that.
If you don't
1Z wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
1Z wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit :
Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL
I have not the slightest idea what you mean
Brent Meeker wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
An excellent essay. I agree with almost everything you wrote; and you put
it very well. Would you mind if I cross posted it to Vic Stenger's AVOID-L
mailing list. You can check out the list here:
http://www.colorado.edu
Brent Meeker wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
An excellent essay. I agree with almost everything you wrote; and you
put it very well. Would you mind if I cross posted it to Vic Stenger's
AVOID-L mailing list. You can check out
Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 04:32:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 21-nov.-06, à 03:42, Tom Caylor a écrit :
1. What is the purpose of this 0-person? What role does it play? As
soon as we say it has a purpose or role, we've just instantiated it.
Why do
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 21-nov.-06, à 03:42, Tom Caylor a écrit :
1. What is the purpose of this 0-person? What role does it play? As
soon as we say it has a purpose or role, we've just instantiated it.
Why do you (or Plotinus) think we need it?
The 0-person is the big whole
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 24-nov.-06, à 10:03, Tom Caylor a écrit :
Have you read Francis Schaeffer's trilogy of books: The God Who Is
There, Escape From Reason, and He Is There And He Is Not Silent. He
talks about the consequences of the belief in the uniformity of natural
causes
Tom Caylor wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 24-nov.-06, à 10:03, Tom Caylor a écrit :
Have you read Francis Schaeffer's trilogy of books: The God Who Is
There, Escape From Reason, and He Is There And He Is Not Silent. He
talks about the consequences of the belief in the uniformity
Sorry for my long reaction time. I have my thoughts on Bruno's,
Stathis' and Brent Meekers' posts, but I will not be able to post until
this weekend.
Tom
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
One thing Schaeffer did was remind us that the assumptions of nature
and cause were foundational to modern science. We have to assume that
there is a nature to reality in order to study it and use our reason to
make sense of it. Reality
Brent Meeker wrote:
Why should nothing be the default. Or to paraphase Quine, Nothing is what
doesn't exist. So what is there? Everything.
Everything that there is is there. But this is the ultimate in begging
the question. The question remains, why is everything (I see) there?
Why do I
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Schaeffer maintained that the basis for antithesis is not that it was
an invention of Aristotle or anyone, but that the basis for antithesis
is reality itself, based on the God who is there (as opposed to not
being there).
I agree with this a priori. At this stage
Hal Ruhl wrote:
I have tried to find material discussing the following idea but have
not found any yet so I would appreciate comments.
The idea is based in the description of objects.
It was recently pointed out to me as being an aspect of my model by
Alastair Malcolm.
The idea is
Tom Caylor wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
I have tried to find material discussing the following idea but have
not found any yet so I would appreciate comments.
The idea is based in the description of objects.
It was recently pointed out to me as being an aspect of my model by
Alastair
Mark Peaty wrote:
Nice try Colin! :-)
and very thought provoking, as are all the contributions of yours which
I have read on various discussion groups.
Here though I think your assumptions are driving your conclusions and
you beg some of the questions you seem to be assuming that you are
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Cayolor writes:
Schaeffer maintained that the basis for antithesis is not that it was
an invention of Aristotle or anyone, but that the basis for antithesis
is reality itself, based on the God who is there (as opposed to not
being there). The
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
I agree (with the proviso that I suppose that by machine you talk
about the old pregodelian conception of (non universal) machine.
We don't know what universal machine are capable of, and I don't see
why a present God would abandon them
Brent Meeker wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Cayolor writes:
Schaeffer maintained that the basis for antithesis is not
that it was an invention of Aristotle or anyone, but that the
basis for antithesis is reality itself, based on the God who
Brent Meeker wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
OK. I'll take the belief out of it for your convenience.
1) If the infinite personal God of love exists this makes it possible
for me to take my eyes off of myself, by looking at God (granted that
such a thing is allowed). (not done yet)
2
Tom Caylor wrote:
(Schaeffer's phrase Is Not Silent is an answer to Wittengenstein's
famous quote.)
Sorry, Wittgenstein. I must have had Witten on the brane ;)
Regarding Bruno's use of the word 'theology', I agree with Brent that
it is unconventional to the point of targeting the wrong
Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Stathis,
What you haven't really addressed in this post is the PR implications
if you use the
word theology prominently in your writing. You will alienate many
scientists and
academic philosophers even though this may be due to
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 04-déc.-06, à 08:34, Tom Caylor wrote :
The existence of a personal God who is not silent answers the questions
in a way that an impersonal god or reality does not...
I certainly have a methodological problem with such an idea. This is
due to my motivation
true.
Stathis Papaioannou
Stathis,
You asked a similar question before:
Tom Caylor writes:
But as somewhat of an idealist, I strive to make everything
whole, integrate beliefs and works, and live in integrity (same root as
integer). So I understand that tension between idealism and real
1Z wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
One thing Schaeffer did was remind us that the assumptions of nature
and cause were foundational to modern science.
More prevalent on the Christian Right is the Dominionist idea, shared
by Reconstructionists, that Christians alone are Biblically mandated
Bruno,
I have been doing a lot of reading/thinking on your former posts on the
Hypostases, other reading on Plotinus and the neo-Platonist hypostases,
and the Christian interpretation of the hypostases. There is a lot
to say, but I'll start by just giving some responses to your last post
on
On Dec 24, 3:49 am, Stathis Papaioannou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
Bruno,
I have been doing a lot of reading/thinking on your former posts on the
Hypostases, other reading on Plotinus and the neo-Platonist hypostases,
and the Christian interpretation of the hypostases
It looks like I might have timed out. Hopefully this doesn't appear
two times.
On Dec 24, 8:55 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 24-déc.-06, à 09:48, Tom Caylor a écrit :
Bruno,
...
I believe the answer to the question, What is Truth? which Pilate asked
Jesus, was standing
On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 25-déc.-06, à 01:13, Tom Caylor a écrit :
The crux is that he is not symbolic...
I respect your belief or faith, but I want to be frank, I have no
evidences for the idea that Jesus is truth, nor can I be sure of
any clear
that provide evidence
for an invariant reality and truth, not necessarily freedom of will,
but something. And I think that looking for ultimate sources would be
circular (as you've said on the Atheist List) only if there were no
ultimate source that we could find. Do you agree with this statement?
Tom
On Dec 26, 7:53 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Dec 26, 3:59 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I regard the idea of believing to be unsound, because it is a
pre-Freudian concept, which assumes that each person has a single
self that maintains
I tried to address everything but ran out of time/energy. If there is
something I deleted from a previous post that I cut out that you wanted
me to address, just bring it back up.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 26-d c.-06, 19:54, Tom Caylor a crit :
On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL
Brent Meeker wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I tried to address everything but ran out of time/energy. If there is
something I deleted from a previous post that I cut out that you wanted
me to address, just bring it back up.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 26-d c.-06, 19:54, Tom Caylor a crit
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes (quoting Bruno Marchal):
[TC]
My whole argument is that without it our hope eventually runs out and
we are left with despair, unless we lie to ourselves against the
absence of hope.
[BM]
Here Stathis already give a genuine comment. You
I'll make this a new topic. It's the same as my post on the older
topic.
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes (quoting Bruno Marchal):
[TC]
My whole argument is that without it our hope eventually runs out and
we are left with despair, unless we lie to ourselves against
Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. Now, if you accept, if only just for the sake of the argument, the
mechanist hypothesis, then you will see there could be an explanation
why you feel necessary to postulate such a personal God. But then I
must agree this explanation is more coherent with
Tom Caylor wrote:
So the solution to the problem of evil *starts* with the theological
solution, as I said above, the solution to the separation between us
and who we really are meant to be. Since we were made in the image of
the personal God, then with the G(Logos) we can be brought
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
So the solution to the problem of evil *starts* with the theological
solution, as I said above, the solution to the separation between us
and who we really are meant to be. Since we were made in the image of
the personal God
Tom Caylor wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
So the solution to the problem of evil *starts* with the theological
solution, as I said above, the solution to the separation between us
and who we really are meant to be. Since we were made in the image
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
So the solution to the problem of evil *starts* with the theological
solution, as I said above, the solution to the separation between us
and who we really are meant to be. Since we were made in the image
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
So you believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God? What I was
hoping is that
you would say Muhammed was deluded or lying, so that the Qur'an is at best
an
impressive piece of literature with some interesting moral teachings: i.e
On Jan 26, 9:22 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, I still don't understand how you will avoid the white rabbits.
By extracting the physical laws from some 1-person machine measure.
This one can be extracted from some interview of an honest
self-observing machine. Well, to
On Jan 27, 7:50�am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 26-janv.-07, � 19:00, Tom Caylor a �crit :
Why do we need to eliminate first-person white rabbits? �For purposes
of science, is not elimination of third-person (or first-person plural)
white rabbits sufficient?
That would
On Jan 31, 10:33 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. But in that case your question is just half of the question, Why do
people have values? If you have values then that mean some things will be
good and some will be bad - a weed is just a flower in a place you don't want
it.
On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate
meaning.
So you say. I see no reason to believe it.
Again, I haven't just pulled this out of thin air. If you
really read the modern
On Feb 6, 11:20 pm, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 6, 10:25 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'm saying that there is no meaning at all if there is no ultimate
meaning.
So you say. I see no reason to believe it.
Again, I haven't just
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
Brent Meeker
It does not matter now that in a million years nothing we do now
will matter.
--- Thomas Nagel
We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true.
Tom
That is, it isn't true that in a million years
Brent Meeker wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
Brent Meeker
It does not matter now that in a million
On Feb 13, 5:18 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
Brent Meeker It does not matter
On Feb 13, 11:35 pm, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I'm talking about ultimate meaning, meaning which is ultimately based
on truth. Purpose would go along with that. I think that this
situation is similar (metaphysically isomorphic? :) to the primary
matter
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/18/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:18 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you built a model society and set its citizens instincts, goals,
laws-from-heaven (but really from you) and so on, would that suffice
On Feb 19, 4:00 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These are positivist questions. This is your basic error in this
whole post (and previous ones). These questions are assuming that
positivism is the right way of viewing
On Feb 20, 3:47 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/20/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ultimate meaning is analogous to axioms or arithmetic truth (e.g. 42
is not prime). In fact the famous quote of Kronecker God created the
integers makes this point. I think
On Feb 23, 3:59 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/23/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point in quoting Kronecker was to simply to allude to the fact that
the foundations of mathematics are axiomatic in a similar way that
ultimate meaning is ultimate. We have
On Feb 23, 8:51 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/24/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that positivists don't like metaphysics, and they actually
don't believe in it either. The problem with this is that science is
ultimately based on (and is inescapably
On Mar 1, 5:26 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/1/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you're seeking to break out of this circularity by introducing God,
who
doesn't need a creator, designer, source of meaning or morality,
containing
these qualities
On Mar 2, 4:54 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the
meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its
symmetry of meaningless whiteness/blackness
On Mar 2, 9:11 am, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2 Mar, 11:54, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break the
meaning/moral circularity inherent in the plenitude, breaking its
On Mar 5, 4:52 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/6/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 2, 4:54 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/2/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
God would be outside of the plenitude, and thus would break
On Mar 1, 8:17 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Feb 26, 4:33 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/27/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The thing that is different in this realm of true morality is that the
Creator is a person that we
On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
A source that has given us the crusades and 9/11 as well as the sister's
of mercy. No a very sufficient source if nobody can agree on what it
provides.
I don't like simply saying That isn't so, but nobody can
On Mar 6, 6:07 am, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:55:40PM -0800, Tom Caylor wrote:
You seem to be saying there are only two options. Either God IS the
plenitude (i.e. the set of all possible universes, leaving aside the
meaning of possible for now
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/7/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
I agree with the Russell quote as it stands. Unendingness is not what
gives meaning. The source of meaning is not living
On Mar 8, 4:14 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/9/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
You could replace love with chocolate and God with the
chocolate
fairy. You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can
On Mar 7, 1:52 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to
any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory argument, most of
the stuff in the Plenitude is useless
On Mar 10, 2:34 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/10/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 7, 1:52 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly
On Jun 3, 12:52 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hal Finney) wrote:
Part of what I wanted to get at in my thought experiment is the
bafflement and confusion an AI should feel when exposed to human ideas
about consciousness. Various people here have proffered their own
ideas, and we might assume that
On Jun 4, 11:50 pm, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor skrev:
I think that IF a computer were conscious (I don't believe it is
possible), then the way we could know it is conscious would not be by
interviewing it with questions and looking for the right answers.
We
On Jun 5, 7:12 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 03-juin-07, à 21:52, Hal Finney a écrit :
Part of what I wanted to get at in my thought experiment is the
bafflement and confusion an AI should feel when exposed to human ideas
about consciousness. Various people here have
On May 25, 6:55 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 25-mai-07, à 02:39, Tom Caylor a écrit :
On May 16, 8:17 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
0) historical background
ARISTOTLE: reality = what you see
PLATO: what you see = shadows of shadows of shadows
On Jun 10, 5:10 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
After Godel, Lob, I do think that comp is the best we can hope to
save the notion of consciousness, free will, responsibility, qualia,
(first)-persons, and many notions like that. Tthe only price: the
notion of matter
On Jun 12, 3:35 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 11-juin-07, à 08:05, Tom Caylor a écrit :
On Jun 10, 5:10 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
After Godel, Lob, I do think that comp is the best we can hope to
save the notion of consciousness, free
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 08-juin-07, à 20:17, Tom Caylor a écrit :
I should respond to your response. I'm in a busy pensive state
lately, reading Theaetetus (as you suggested on the Incompleteness
thread) along with Protagoras and some Aristotle (along with the dozen
other books I'm
On Aug 9, 11:58 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 9, 11:47 pm, Scipione [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Marc,
I knew this puzzle quite well; i tried to order it but i have some
trouble
obtaining it (i'm italian and as you can readhttp://uk.eternityii.com/
Italy isn't included in the
On Aug 23, 8:41 am, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 9, 11:58 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 9, 11:47 pm, Scipione [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Marc,
I knew this puzzle quite well; i tried to order it but i have some
trouble
obtaining it (i'm italian and as you can
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 24, 3:46 am, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think I will spend my limited time and energy on the decaying earth
doing other things. Without even knowing much about the puzzle other
than reading the puzzle description, my guess is that without
On Oct 25, 3:25 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 25-oct.-07, à 03:25, Wei Dai a écrit :
Rolf Nelson wrote:
An example
that Yudowsky gave: you might spend resources on constructing a unique
arrow pointing at yourself, in order to increase your measure by
making it easier
On Jan 2, 9:47 pm, Gevin Giorbran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Three years of college, no degrees, no status. Left school and started
writing, and authored three books about the existence and structure of
all possible universes, including Exploring A Many Worlds Universe
in 1997, arguing as the
1 - 100 of 202 matches
Mail list logo
