Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-02 Thread benjayk
soulcatcher-2 wrote: Hi all, every time I read about the anthropic reasoning in physics I can't help asking the more general question: Why I am I, not somebody else? Why I see through _this_ eyes, am confined to _this_ brain, was born in _this_ year, etc? This question seems to me of

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-05 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: It is actually an art to find the dosage and the timing so that you understand better some, well, let us say statements you get there. One is just impossible to memorize, or you stay there, and a copy is send here. This is a copy effect experimented by a

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-06 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: And what do you mean by stay there? Forever? Why should you stay there (can you choose)? And where is there? Is it forgetfulness oder remembrance? It is very difficult to describe any first person experience. We cannot even describe normal state of

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-09 Thread benjayk
Rex Allen wrote: Where could the explanation begin? I'd say there is no explanation. It just is what it is. As Brent said...it's descriptions all the way down. I wouldn't neccesarily disagree, though only if you mean verbal or formal explanation. In a sense our life and our experiences

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-10 Thread benjayk
Brent Meeker-2 wrote: benjayk wrote: Rex Allen wrote: Where could the explanation begin? I'd say there is no explanation. It just is what it is. As Brent said...it's descriptions all the way down. I wouldn't neccesarily disagree, though only if you mean verbal

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-12 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Dec 2009, at 03:23, benjayk wrote: For me numbers don't make independent sense of the appearance (!) of matter, too. Since I cannot conceive of any meaning of the number 2 without reffering to some real (in the sense of every day usage) object

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-19 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: Honestly I think you are a bit dishonest to yourself here, since you already presume the appearance of matter, I assume nowhere primitive matter. I do assume consensual reality. If not, I would not post message on a list. Well, that was my point. So indeed

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-28 Thread benjayk
I willl not reply to all parts of your post in detail, because I think we mainly discuss semantics on some specific issues. I feel we agree on most things either way, it seems pointless to get Bruno Marchal wrote: It's like a theory saying: There is something, but don't aks me what it

Re: Why I am I?

2009-12-30 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: The theory explains what exists, and how the rest emerges from it. But then doesn't the rest exist, too? I just see a problem with claiming to explain what exists, when it is really not clear what existance could

Re: Why I am I?

2010-01-01 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Dec 2009, at 17:07, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: They are. Numbers are primitive. The variable x and y represents excusively those numbers. Finite pieces of computation are speical numbers, like prime numbers. To be a (finite piece

Re: R/ASSA query

2010-01-14 Thread benjayk
I would say the concept of OM moments is, if taken as more then as a fuzzy pointer to some now, is an oversimplification (or an overcomplexification, depends on your viewpoint), so there is no absolute meaning to ASSA/RSSA. Maybe there is only one observer moment (eternal life of god, I AM) and

Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-21 Thread benjayk
In this post I present an example of a problem that we can (quite easily) solve, yet a computer can't, even in principle, thus showing that our intelligence transcends that of a computer. It doesn't necessarily show that human intelligence transcend computer intelligence, since the human may have

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-21 Thread benjayk
meekerdb wrote: This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being. The Computer He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal). But it can't confirm it as well (how could it, since we as humans can't confirm it and what he knows about us derives from what we

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-21 Thread benjayk
Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Benjayk, Isn't this a form of the same argument that Penrose made? I guess so, yet it seems more specific. At least it was more obvious to me than the usual arguments against AI. I haven't really read anything by Penrose, except maybe some excerpts

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-21 Thread benjayk
meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 2:24 PM, benjayk wrote: meekerdb wrote: This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being. The Computer He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal). But it can't confirm it as well (how could it, since we as humans can't

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-21 Thread benjayk
meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 2:52 PM, benjayk wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 2:24 PM, benjayk wrote: meekerdb wrote: This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being. The Computer He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal). But it can't confirm

Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with a chance of thunderstorms

2012-08-22 Thread benjayk
Roger Clough wrote: Hi benjayk In monadic theory, since space does not exist, monads are by definition nonlocal, thus all minds in a sense are one and can commune with one another as well as with God (the mind behind the supreme monad). The clarity of intercommunication

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-22 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Aug 2012, at 00:26, benjayk wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 2:52 PM, benjayk wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 2:24 PM, benjayk wrote: meekerdb wrote: This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being. The Computer He might

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-22 Thread benjayk
meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 3:26 PM, benjayk wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 2:52 PM, benjayk wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 8/21/2012 2:24 PM, benjayk wrote: meekerdb wrote: This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being. The Computer He might be right in saying

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-22 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: Imagine a computer without an output. Now, if we look at what the computer is doing, we can not infer what it is actually doing in terms of high-level activity, because this is just defined at the output/input. For example, no video exists in the computer -

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-22 Thread benjayk
John Clark-12 wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: I have no difficulty asserting this statement as well. See: Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert this sentence is true. Benjamin Jakubik cannot consistently assert

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-22 Thread benjayk
Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: John Clark-12 wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: I have no difficulty asserting this statement as well. See: Benjamin

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-22 Thread benjayk
Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Imagine a computer without an output. Now, if we look at what the computer is doing, we can not infer what it is actually doing in terms of high-level

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-22 Thread benjayk
Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: John Clark-12 wrote: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:33 PM, benjayk

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-22 Thread benjayk
Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Imagine a computer without an output. Now

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-23 Thread benjayk
Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Aug 22, 2012, at 1:57 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, benjayk

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-23 Thread benjayk
Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-23 Thread benjayk
is not informational. Also, machines necessarily work in steps (that's how we built them), yet entaglement is instantaneous. If you have to machines then they both have to do a step to know the state of the other one. And indeed entanglement is somewhat magical, but nevertheless we know it exists. benjayk

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-23 Thread benjayk
universal programming language without the ability of self-modification. The best it could do is manipulate a model of its own code (but this wasn't the problem). Yet we can simply solve the problem by answering 1+1=2 (since we are human and not computers by the opinion of the majority). benjayk -- View

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-23 Thread benjayk
Sorry, I am not going to answer to your whole post, because frankly the points you make are not very interesting to me. John Clark-12 wrote: On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: 'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-24 Thread benjayk
Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:11 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: So what is your definition of computer, and what is your evidence/reasoning that you yourself are not contained in that definition

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-24 Thread benjayk
Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:18 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: Taking the universal dovetailer, it could really mean everything (or nothing), just like the sentence You can interpret whatever you want into this sentence

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-24 Thread benjayk
Stathis Papaioannou-2 wrote: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:59 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: I am not sure that this is true. First, no one yet showed that nature can be described through a set of fixed laws. Judging from our experience, it seems all laws

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-25 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote: But this avoides my point that we can't imagine that levels, context and ambiguity don't exist, and this is why computational emulation does not mean that the emulation can substitute the original. But here you do

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-25 Thread benjayk
Stathis Papaioannou-2 wrote: On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:36 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: The evidence that the universe follows fixed laws is all of science. That is plainly wrong. It is like saying what humans do is determined through a (quite accurate

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-25 Thread benjayk
you whether or not you should take an artificial brain if it was the only way to save your life? Of course it is not a useful theory, since it is not a theory in the first place. To answer your question: No. There is no theoretical way of deciding that. benjayk -- View this message in context

Why the Church-Turing thesis?

2012-08-28 Thread benjayk
It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal turing machine can compute everything that is intuitively computable, has near universal acceptance among computer scientists. I really wonder why this is so, given that there are simple cases where we can compute something

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-03 Thread benjayk
- because at some level his emulation is only approximate which may not matter much on earth, but will matter in heaven or the beyond (which is what counts, ulitmately). benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-09-03 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote: But this avoides my point that we can't imagine that levels, context and ambiguity don't exist, and this is why computational emulation does not mean

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-03 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Sep 2012, at 15:11, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: If you disagree, please tell me why. I don't disagree. I just point on the fact that you don't give any justification of your belief. If you are correct, there must be something in cells

Re: Hating the rich

2012-09-03 Thread benjayk
there are also people that consider themselves left or right to whom not all of that or nothing applies to. I am just referring to the majority.) benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Hating-the-rich-tp34372531p34384484.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-04 Thread benjayk
John Clark-12 wrote: On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:11 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Showing scientifically that nature is infinite isn't really possible. Maybe not. In Turing's proof he assumed that machines could not operate with infinite numbers, so

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-04 Thread benjayk
completely unwarranted and I have yet to see evidence for it or a reasoning behind it. benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34389041.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-09-04 Thread benjayk
problems to understand that on an intellectual level. More probably you just don't want to lose your proof, because it seems to be very important you (you defended it in thousands of posts). But honestly, this is just ego and has nothing to do with a genuine search for truth. benjayk -- View

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-09-06 Thread benjayk
sense by using anything that's - practically speaking - digital (we can already do that), so your reasoning doesn't work. benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34396949.html Sent from

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-06 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Sep 2012, at 21:47, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Yes, we simulated some systems, but they couldn't perform the same function. A pump does the function of an heart. No. A pump just pumps blood. The heart also performs endocrine functions

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

2012-09-06 Thread benjayk
Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal turing machine can compute everything that is intuitively computable, has near universal acceptance among computer

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

2012-09-07 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Aug 2012, at 21:57, benjayk wrote: It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal turing machine can compute everything that is intuitively computable, has near universal acceptance among computer scientists. Yes indeed. I

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

2012-09-07 Thread benjayk
Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:47 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-09-07 Thread benjayk
can't be purely digital, and so the reasoning doesn't work because it reasons as if the substitution is digital. benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34402418.html Sent from the Everything List

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-07 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote: Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi) can't be computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain, this doesn't entangle it with other brains since computation is classical. The UD emulates all

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-09-08 Thread benjayk
between *actual* points of view and arithmetics). It doesn't matter whether I like COMP or not. I don't find it a very fruitful assumption, but that's not the issue. benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-08 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:22, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote: Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi) can't be computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain, this doesn't entangle

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

2012-09-08 Thread benjayk
no information to some information in some relative realm. benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Why-the-Church-Turing-thesis--tp34348236p34406957.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

2012-09-08 Thread benjayk
computational and being implementable on a computer) where there are computations that can't be emulated by universal turing machine, using level breaking languages (which explicitly refer to what is being computed on the base level). I'll write another post on this. benjayk -- View this message

A non turing-emulable meta-program

2012-09-08 Thread benjayk
an unbound amount of counterfactual emulations and interpret them correctly (to understand in which way and at which point the emulation is correct and in which way it is not). benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Why-the-Church-Turing-thesis--tp34348236p34407926.html Sent

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

2012-09-10 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Sep 2012, at 16:08, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Sep 2012, at 14:22, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote: Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi) can't be computed

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-09-10 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Sep 2012, at 15:47, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: even though the paper actually doesn't even begin to adress the question. Which question? The paper mainly just formulate a question, shows how comp makes it possible to translate the question

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

2012-09-10 Thread benjayk
No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the Church Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no bearing (from the program's perspective). If that is true, we can show that CT must be false, because we *can* define a meta-program that has

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

2012-09-11 Thread benjayk
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/10 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the Church Turing thesis. The particular machine at the lowest level has no bearing (from the program's perspective

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-09-11 Thread benjayk
this issue (as they just introduce new metas because their proof is not written in arithmetic). benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Simple-proof-that-our-intelligence-transcends-that-of-computers-tp34330236p34417635.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

2012-09-11 Thread benjayk
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/10 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com No program can determine its hardware. This is a consequence of the Church Turing thesis. The particular machine

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

2012-09-11 Thread benjayk
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/10 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com No program can determine its

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

2012-09-12 Thread benjayk
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/11 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2012/9/11 benjayk benjamin.jaku

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-09-12 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Sep 2012, at 12:39, benjayk wrote: Our discussion is going nowhere. You don't see my points and assume I want to attack you (and thus are defensive and not open to my criticism), and I am obviously frustrated by that, which is not conducive to a good

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-09-12 Thread benjayk
Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:05 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Sep 2012, at 12:39, benjayk wrote: Our discussion is going nowhere. You don't see my points and assume I want to attack you (and thus

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-09-13 Thread benjayk
that they abstract away the error (but also the meaning of the proof) and because they are dogmatic about authorities being right. That's why studying will not help much. It just creates more abstraction, further hiding the error. benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Simple

Re: Maudlin How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?

2011-02-17 Thread benjayk
1Z wrote: Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at all with your consciousness, so that IF comp is correct physics has to be reduced to number theory, and such a primary matter is an invisible epiphenomena. Physics cannot be eliminated in favour of non existent

Re: Maudlin How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?

2011-02-17 Thread benjayk
1Z wrote: On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: 1Z wrote: Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at all with your consciousness, so that IF comp is correct physics has to be reduced to number theory, and such a primary matter

Re: Maudlin How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?

2011-02-17 Thread benjayk
Brent Meeker-2 wrote: On 2/17/2011 10:14 AM, benjayk wrote: 1Z wrote: On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjaykbenjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: 1Z wrote: Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at all with your consciousness, so that IF comp

Re: Maudlin How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?

2011-02-17 Thread benjayk
1Z wrote: On Feb 17, 6:14 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: 1Z wrote: On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: 1Z wrote: Comp will imply that such a primary matter cannnot interfer at all with your consciousness, so that IF comp

Re: Maudlin How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?

2011-02-17 Thread benjayk
Brent Meeker-2 wrote: On 2/17/2011 12:27 PM, benjayk wrote: Brent Meeker-2 wrote: On 2/17/2011 10:14 AM, benjayk wrote: 1Z wrote: On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjaykbenjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: 1Z wrote: Comp will imply

Re: Maudlin How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?

2011-02-18 Thread benjayk
1Z wrote: On Feb 17, 8:52 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: 1Z wrote: On Feb 17, 6:14 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: 1Z wrote: On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: 1Z wrote: Comp will imply

Re: Maudlin How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?

2011-02-18 Thread benjayk
1Z wrote: On Feb 17, 10:38 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: Brent Meeker-2 wrote: On 2/17/2011 12:27 PM, benjayk wrote: Brent Meeker-2 wrote: On 2/17/2011 10:14 AM, benjayk wrote: 1Z wrote: On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjaykbenjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com

Re: Platonia

2011-02-18 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi, What do you mean by Platonia? The kind of Platonia in Tegmark or in Peter's (1Z) post does not make sense for mathematicians. Even if you are using a theory like Quine's NF, which allows mathematical universes, you still have no mathematical description

Re: Platonia

2011-02-19 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: Isn't it enough to say everything that we *could* describe in mathematics exists in platonia? The problem is that we can describe much more things than the one we are able to show consistent, so if you allow what we could describe you take too much. If you

Re: Platonia

2011-02-20 Thread benjayk
Brent Meeker-2 wrote: On 2/19/2011 3:39 PM, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Isn't it enough to say everything that we *could* describe in mathematics exists in platonia? The problem is that we can describe much more things than the one we are able to show

Re: Platonia

2011-02-21 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Feb 2011, at 00:39, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Isn't it enough to say everything that we *could* describe in mathematics exists in platonia? The problem is that we can describe much more things than the one we are able to show consistent, so

Re: Platonia

2011-02-21 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Feb 2011, at 13:13, benjayk wrote: Brent Meeker-2 wrote: On 2/19/2011 3:39 PM, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Isn't it enough to say everything that we *could* describe in mathematics exists in platonia? The problem is that we can describe much

Re: Platonia

2011-02-22 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Now, just recall that Platonia is based on classical logic where the falsity f, or 0 = 1, entails all proposition. So if you insist to say that 0 = 1, I will soon prove that you owe to me A billions of dollars, and that you should prepare

Re: Maudlin How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?

2011-02-23 Thread benjayk
1Z wrote: On Feb 18, 3:07 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: 1Z wrote: On Feb 17, 8:52 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: 1Z wrote: On Feb 17, 6:14 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: 1Z wrote: On Feb 17, 3:10 pm, benjayk

Re: Platonia

2011-02-23 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent Meeker-2 wrote: The easy way is to assume inconsistent descriptions are merely an arbitrary combination of symbols that fail to describe something in particular and thus have only the content that every utterance has by virtue of

Re: Maudlin How many times does COMP have to be false before its false?

2011-02-23 Thread benjayk
1Z wrote: On Feb 18, 4:00 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: 1Z wrote: On Feb 17, 10:38 pm, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: Brent Meeker-2 wrote: On 2/17/2011 12:27 PM, benjayk wrote: Brent Meeker-2 wrote: On 2/17/2011 10:14 AM, benjayk

Re: Platonia

2011-02-24 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Feb 2011, at 22:14, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Now, just recall that Platonia is based on classical logic where the falsity f, or 0 = 1, entails all proposition. So if you insist to say that 0 = 1, I will soon prove

Re: Platonia

2011-02-26 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: So our disagreement seems to be quite subtle. It seemed to me you wanted to make numbers the absolute thing. But when we are really modest it seems to me we have to admit the meaning in numbers is an intersubjective agreement in interpretation and we

Re: Platonia

2011-02-28 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Feb 2011, at 00:25, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Feb 2011, at 17:37, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent Meeker-2 wrote: The easy way is to assume inconsistent descriptions are merely an arbitrary

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-06-11 Thread benjayk
Hi Bruno, Bruno Marchal wrote: Actually, comp prevents artificial intelligence. This does not prevent the existence, and even the apparition, of intelligent machines. But this might happen *despite* humans, instead of 'thanks to the humans'. This sounds really strange. So if we

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-06-15 Thread benjayk
Hi Bruno, Bruno Marchal wrote: We just cannot do artificial intelligence in a provable manner. We need chance, or luck. Even if we get some intelligent machine, we will not know-it-for sure (perhaps just believe it correctly). But this is a quite weak statement, isn't it? It just

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-06-15 Thread benjayk
Hi Bruno, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think that comp might imply that simple virgin (non programmed) universal (and immaterial) machine are already conscious. Perhaps even maximally conscious. What could maximally conscious mean? My intuition says quite strongly that consciousness is a

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-06-17 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Jun 2011, at 21:20, benjayk wrote: Hi Bruno, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think that comp might imply that simple virgin (non programmed) universal (and immaterial) machine are already conscious. Perhaps even maximally conscious. What could maximally

Re: Progress and Happiness

2011-06-18 Thread benjayk
Rex Allen wrote: If evolution by natural selection were correct, then it seems to me that if the overall environment remained relatively stable for an extended period of time - then regardless of how it ended up, humans would be at about same level of happiness. I don't think it is

Re: Progress and Happiness

2011-06-20 Thread benjayk
Rex Allen wrote: On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 6:08 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: If evolution by natural selection were correct, then it seems to me that if the overall environment remained relatively stable for an extended period of time

Re: Progress and Happiness

2011-06-20 Thread benjayk
Jason Resch-2 wrote: An interesting video related to the discussion: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html Interesting point: Lottery winners and those who become paraplegic have the same level of happiness after a year. A very interesting talk. We tend

Re: Progress and Happiness

2011-06-23 Thread benjayk
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:35 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 6:08 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: Rex Allen wrote: If evolution by natural selection were correct, then it seems to me

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-06-23 Thread benjayk
First off, I want to say it's really pleasant and interesting to communicate with you. You are a really open minded guy and you are very sincere in communicating ideas that can lead people (and society) to more freedom, without pretending to know it all. I really appreciate that. :) Bruno

Re: Progress and Happiness

2011-06-23 Thread benjayk
Jason Resch-2 wrote: I've posted this link before, and it is a long read, but I think it is a great piece which shows what technology ultimately can accomplish: http://frombob.to/you/aconvers.html I like the story. In my opinion it potrays advanced beings too much like human beings with

Re: Progress and Happiness

2011-06-23 Thread benjayk
meekerdb wrote: On 6/23/2011 12:36 PM, benjayk wrote: To the latter I absolutely agree. Rules will always be broken. But rules won't eliminate fierce competition. It won't just dissapear, either. It will be superseded by an deeper ability to cooperate that is brought about mainly

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-17 Thread benjayk
Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: But with comp, you are using 1+1=2, and much more, to tackle the subjective truth of a universal number thinking about 1+1=2. So, if you reject arithmetical truth, comp makes no much

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-17 Thread benjayk
benjayk wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: But with comp, you are using 1+1=2, and much more, to tackle the subjective truth of a universal number thinking about 1+1=2. So, if you reject arithmetical

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

2011-07-18 Thread benjayk
Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 5:17 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: benjayk wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: But with comp, you are using 1+1=2, and much more

  1   2   3   >