On 9/28/2012 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Sep 2012, at 19:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/27/2012 9:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I object to the idea that consciousness will cause a brain or other
machine to behave in a way not predictable by purely physical laws.
But this cannot
John Clark at least will appreciate this. :-)
Original Message
To: Skeptic skep...@lists.johnshopkins.edu
mailto:skep...@lists.johnshopkins.edu
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/a-sokal-style-hoax-by-an-anti-religious-philosopher-2/
-
But today I’m
On 9/29/2012 5:43 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I have understood Brent in such a way that when engineers develop
a robot they must just care about functionality to achieve and
they can ignore consciousness at all. Whether it appears in the
robot or not, it is not a business of engineers. Do you
On 9/29/2012 7:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, and the fact that we cannot know which one bears us here and now. The QM
indeterminacy is made into a particular first person comp indeterminacy.
Where is the here and now if not a localization in a physical world.
Perhaps, but you need to
On 9/30/2012 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Sep 2012, at 21:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/29/2012 7:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, and the fact that we cannot know which one bears us here and now. The QM
indeterminacy is made into a particular first person comp indeterminacy.
Where
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 normal hearing. But technology keeps
On 9/30/2012 4:31 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Hehe.
Fine.
However, the concrete abstract seems very promising for a theologian.
It is clear that Boudry know the concepts that he manage. His abstract
is a piece of cake, it is a I solved the Teologian problem of our
time! . It is not pure
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 Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid
On 9/30/2012 1:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
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
On 9/30/2012 4:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You aren't seeing my point that if human designers are nothing but evolved systems, then
they must have the same limitations as evolution itself, unless you can explain why they
wouldn't.
More nothing buttery. If people are just atoms they must
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, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On 9/30/2012 5:29 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
So I am asking you. Why make that distinction? What is the difference that makes a
difference?
The difference is that human designers have in mind some goal for their design, they
can start from a clean sheet or modify and existing design, they
On 10/1/2012 2:47 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Conservatives are those who find themselves on top and call it 'natural'.
What a waste of power to be in the top and wanting to do leave things as they are... In
contrast, the progressives supposedly consider themselves in the bottom, but
On 10/1/2012 3:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
You've only demonstrated your own prejudice against reason.
no comment
Evolution produces many designs that are suboptimal, because natural
selection only
requires that a design be 'good-enough'
suboptimal for what? optimal has a
On 10/1/2012 3:39 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
An interesting perspective on evolution vs. engineering:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdg4mU-wuhI
From an engineer who uses evolution to design computers.
Notable points:
He is unable to understand how some of the outputs of this evolutionary process
On 10/2/2012 2:57 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Stephen (and Bruno?)
What I called The Aris - Total- meaning Aristotle's maxim that /the 'whole' is bigger
than the sum of its parts/ - means something else in MY agnosticism. Originally I
included only the fact what Bruno pointed out now: that the PARTS
On 10/4/2012 6:52 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 09:01:14AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
Yes, so a human can jump directly from the tangled mess of DOS to a clean
streamlined operating system like LINUX, but Evolution can only add even
more tangled bells and whistles to DOS.
On 10/4/2012 7:31 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 07:02:59PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/4/2012 6:52 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Both are examples of evolutionary design than revolutionary design, as
it were. Another example is the design of x86_64 processors by
Intel
On 10/4/2012 8:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 07:48:01PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
If it is crucially different, then that difference ought to be
measurable. Got any ideas?
Sure, the ratio of the number of new designs built that didn't work
compared to those that did
On 10/4/2012 9:24 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Yes, so a human can jump directly from the tangled mess of DOS to a
clean
streamlined operating system like LINUX, but Evolution
On 10/5/2012 2:04 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Dear john:
2012/10/4 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com
Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com mailto:agocor...@gmail.com Wrote:
Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid tinkerer, it had
over 3
On 10/5/2012 4:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 2:04 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Dear john:
2012/10/4 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com
On 10/5/2012 5:15 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 07:33:53AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
I appreciate your suggestion, but I am already convinced,
and have other sources besides that.
What I'm looking for is a book which gives the central
On 10/5/2012 6:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:32:21PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Do we have any reason to believe ideas reproduce with variation and
then those that reproduce most successfully rise to consciousness?
THAT would be a Darwinian theory of consciousness
On 10/5/2012 8:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 4:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote
On 10/5/2012 9:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 8:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote
On 10/6/2012 12:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You mean: all person have an infinity of relative incarnation in arithmetic. This is not
entirely trivial to prove. You can't attribute to people statements they don't make. If
they did not ignore the 1p-indeterminacy, they would not assume matter.
On 10/8/2012 8:42 AM, John Clark wrote:
2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective experience, in which case
there is no reason for Evolution to produce consciousness and I have no explanation for
why I am here, and I have reason to believe that I am the only conscious being in
On 10/8/2012 10:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
So the more stimulation you get through your senses of the outside
environment the
less conscious you become. Huh?
Stimulation that you get thorough your senses of the outside environment does not
control you.
How could you possibly
On 10/8/2012 11:25 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 2:19:56 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 10:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
So the more stimulation you get through your senses of the outside
environment
the less conscious you become. Huh?
On 10/8/2012 11:45 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Deutsch is right about the need to advance in Popperian epistemology,
which ultimately is evolutionary epistemology. How evolution makes a
portion of matter ascertain what is truth in virtue of what and for
what purpose. The idea of intelligence
On 10/8/2012 1:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 3:38:42 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 11:25 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 2:19:56 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 10:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
So the
On 10/8/2012 2:10 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 4:57:08 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 1:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 3:38:42 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 11:25 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday,
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 have not needed to operate in environments
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 the model of self under the evolutionary
On 10/9/2012 8:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In some sense they succeed enough the mirror test. That's enough for me to consider
them, well, not just conscious, but as conscious as me, and you.
The difference are only on domain competence, and intelligence (in which case it might
be that octopus
On 10/9/2012 11:54 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9597345/Afterlife-exists-says-top-brain-surgeon.html
Comments, theories, reflections welcome.
You pays your money and you makes your choice.
Kim Jones
I wouldn't say yes to him. He thinks
On 10/11/2012 5:17 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Spacetime could not be warped if it were a void.
Why not? Spacetime is just the set of relations, i.e. intervals, between events. If those
intervals satisfy the Minkowski metric the spacetime is flat. If they don't the spacetime
is warped.
On 10/11/2012 9:41 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Brent,
According to Einstein it takes massive objects to warp spacetime.
No, that's wrong. Mass-energy warps spacetime, but the Einstein equations have non-flat
solutions with a zero stress-energy tensor. DeSitter showed this shortly after
On 10/11/2012 10:14 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net
wrote:
Free Will-- You need enough freedom
My difficulty with the free will noise is not the will part, you want to do some
things and don't want to do others
On 10/11/2012 1:14 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It's [free will] a simple enough concept
I think that's true, although I may be using a somewhat different meaning of the word
simple than you
On 10/12/2012 3:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
life, consciousness, free will, intelligence
I try to give a phsical definition of each one:
Life: whathever that maintain its internal entropy in a non trivial way (A diamant is
not alive). That is, to make use of hardwired and adquired
On 10/12/2012 1:39 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So you see no reason to draw a legal distinction between a banker to
takes money
from his bank to support a more lavish life style and one who does
On 10/12/2012 1:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 08:23:33AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
Life cannot survive without making choices,
like where to go next. To avoid an enemy. To get food.
This act of life obviously requires an autonomous choice.
Nobody
On 10/14/2012 10:36 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
But if a computer beats you at an intelligent task, it would have to be
programmed
to do so.
And you would have to be educated to do so.
which
On 10/14/2012 11:36 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 2:19:14 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/14/2012 10:36 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net javascript: wrote:
But if a computer beats you at an intelligent task, it
On 10/15/2012 7:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
Nick Bostrum, a philosopher at Oxford University wrote an interesting paper on this
subject:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
The following is from the abstract:
This paper argues that /at least one/ of the following propositions is
On 10/15/2012 9:38 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I think he [Chambers] goes wrong by assuming a priori that consciousness
is
functional,
I've asked you this question dozens of times
On 10/15/2012 9:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
And a computer is exquisitely sensitive to particular voltages and not
sensitive at
all to other voltages that don't make the threshold.
Let's see how computer fares under a giant junkyard magnet.
Probably better than you will fare
On 10/15/2012 11:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 15, 2012 2:42:33 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/15/2012 9:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
And a computer is exquisitely sensitive to particular voltages and not
sensitive at all to other voltages that don't make
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 that consciousness is contingent on a level of
On 10/16/2012 9:37 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If consciousness doesn't do anything then Evolution can't see it, so
how and
why did Evolution produce it? The fact that you have no answer
On 10/16/2012 10:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
*How can reason be created (for the very first time in the cosmos) for a reason (fails
because it is circular) *
Seems to be a pun on reason = rational thinking and reason = explanatory
cause.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are
On 10/16/2012 12:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:42:26 PM UTC-4, Brent 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
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 complexity has been advocated
On 10/19/2012 10:54 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi,
I was looking up a definition and found the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_description_length
Central to MDL theory is the one-to-one correspondence between code length functions
and probability distributions. (This
On 10/20/2012 5:48 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/10/20 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net
Hi Bruno Marchal
In that definition of a p-zombie below, it says that
a p-zombie cannot experience qualia, and qualia
are what the senses tell you. The mind
On 10/20/2012 10:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear Stephen,
On 19 Oct 2012, at 19:44, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/19/2012 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Oct 2012, at 22:02, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/10/17 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com mailto:agocor...@gmail.com
On 10/21/2012 6:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And their very specific correlation with the physical brain states of sleep.
Of course. But this is taken into account in the theoretical reasoning where we suppose
the brain state are obtained by (immaterial) machine doing the computation at the
On 10/22/2012 12:51 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/22 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:46 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 10/22/2012 11:35 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/22/2012 6:05 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I don't understand why you're focusing on NP-hard problems... NP-hard problems
are
solvable algorithmically... but not efficiently. When I read you (I'm surely
misinterpreting), it seems like you're
On 10/23/2012 3:40 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/23/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/22/2012 11:35 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/22/2012 6:05 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I don't understand why you're focusing on NP-hard problems... NP-hard problems
are
solvable algorithmically
On 10/23/2012 2:39 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
I have not met this argument before. I have comments interspersed.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 08:04:35AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote:
Kant's Refutation of (Problematic) Idealism
Problematic Idealism (Berkeley's idealism, not that of Leibniz) is the
On 10/23/2012 3:20 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:47:12PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/23/2012 2:39 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
2) can be aware of having experiences that occur in a specific temporal
order only if I perceive
something permanent by reference
On 10/23/2012 3:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/23/2012 1:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/23/2012 3:40 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/23/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/22/2012 11:35 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/22/2012 6:05 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I don't understand why
On 10/23/2012 5:50 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
There are a number of theories to explain the collapse of the quantum wave
function
(see below).
1) In subjective theories, the collapse is attributed
to consciousness (presumably of the intent or decision to make
a measurement
On 10/23/2012 6:33 PM, Max Gron wrote:
On Sunday, November 28, 2010 5:19:08 AM UTC+10:30, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Rex Allen rexall...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
On 10/24/2012 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Oct 2012, at 14:50, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
There are a number of theories to explain the collapse of the quantum wave
function
(see below).
1) In subjective theories, the collapse is attributed
to consciousness (presumably
On 10/24/2012 4:49 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
According to Descartes, the physical is that which has extension in space.
That's a common definition of existence.
That would imply that electrons and quarks don't exist.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On 10/24/2012 4:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Oct 2012, at 15:35, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Nothing is true, even comp, until it is proven by experiment.
Then your own consciousness is false, which I doubt.
But I do experience my consciousness.
Then the existence even of
On 10/24/2012 4:56 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
Just because something has no extension in space
I wrote location not extension - don't misquote me.
(physical existence) doesn't mean it doesn't exist mentally,
for example in Platonia.
But existing mentally isn't the same
On 10/24/2012 5:31 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/abstract
Comments?
Woo-woo. Small effect sizes which are *statistically* significant are indicative of bias
errors. I'd wager a proper Bayesian analysis of the original
On 10/24/2012 7:56 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:21:23 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/23/2012 6:33 PM, Max Gron wrote:
On Sunday, November 28, 2010 5:19:08 AM UTC+10:30, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Jason Resch
On 10/24/2012 11:58 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/10/23 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 22 Oct 2012, at 21:50, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/10/22 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
mailto:stephe...@charter.net
On 10/22/2012 2:38 AM,
On 10/24/2012 3:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 2:52:06 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/24/2012 7:56 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:21:23 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/23/2012 6:33 PM, Max Gron wrote:
On Sunday,
On 10/24/2012 5:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
That's right. The meaning, the what is represented, is given by
interaction
(including speech) with the environment (including others). So only a
computer
with the ability to interact can seem intelligent and therefore
On 10/24/2012 6:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:04 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote
I think you are missing
On 10/24/2012 6:39 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Note that I too agree with that bit about the interpreter of information
being
needed for information to have any objective meaning.
But that's just a semantic explanation since interpreter and how we
would know
whether or not
On 10/24/2012 6:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If we turn the Fading Qualia argument around, what we get is a world in which Comp is
true and it is impossible to simulate cellular activity without evoking the presumed
associated experience.
If we wanted to test a new painkiller for instance,
On 10/24/2012 8:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Oct 24, 2012, at 9:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/24/2012 6:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:04 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote
On 10/24/2012 9:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Or what if we don't care? We don't care about slaughtering cattle, which
are pretty
smart
as computers go. We manage not to think about starving children in Africa,
and they
*are*
humans. And we ignore the looming disasters
On 10/24/2012 10:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:10:24 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/24/2012 9:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Or what if we don't care? We don't care about slaughtering cattle,
which are
pretty smart
as computers go.
On 10/24/2012 10:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:29:24 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/24/2012 10:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:10:24 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/24/2012 9:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On 10/25/2012 4:58 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Stephan,
Since yesterday it occurred to me that you may be thinking of the 10
or more dimensions of string theory as being orthogonal because they
were so before the big bang. But the dimensions that
curled-up/compactified went out of orthogonality
On 10/25/2012 5:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
2) Dennett on qualia
In Consciousness Explained (1991) and Quining Qualia (1988),[19] Daniel
Dennett offers an argument against qualia that attempts to
show that the above definition breaks down when one tries to make a practical
application of it.
Good points. The contrast is usually qualia-v-quanta. I think color can be communicated
and we have an RGB language for doing so that makes it more quanta than qualia. So
extending your point to Schrodinger, if you're a wine connoisseur you have a language for
communicating the taste of wine.
On 10/25/2012 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Oct 2012, at 20:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/24/2012 7:56 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:21:23 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/23/2012 6:33 PM, Max Gron wrote:
On Sunday, November 28, 2010 5:19:08 AM UTC+10
On 10/25/2012 8:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Oct 2012, at 22:20, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/24/2012 11:58 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/10/23 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 22 Oct 2012, at 21:50, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/10/22 Stephen P
On 10/25/2012 10:49 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Stephen P. Kingstephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 10/25/2012 11:52 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/25/2012 4:58 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Stephan,
Since yesterday it occurred to me that you may be thinking of the 10
On 10/25/2012 11:47 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/25/2012 10:49 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Stephen P. Kingstephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On 10/25/2012 11:52 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/25
On 10/25/2012 3:01 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net:
On 10/25/2012 5:16 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 4:58:33 PM UTC-4, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
You can identify a
On 10/25/2012 4:38 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Intentionally lying, defying it's programming, committing murder would all
be good indicators. Generally when an error is blamed on the computer itself
rather than
On 10/26/2012 4:51 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
Quanta do exist, and can be measured,
but by definition they can only be experienced as qualia,
(another word for experience) which can't be measured.
Well that's the point isn't it. Quanta are what can be shared, and they can be shared
On 10/26/2012 5:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Brent,
What happens -- or is it even possible -- to
collapse the dimensions down to one (which I
conjecture might be time), or zero (Platonia or mind).
I'm not sure what you mean by 'collapse'. Do you mean, Is is possible to invent a theory
On 10/26/2012 5:07 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
It is suggested that computers can possibly simulate the mind at least
functionally, perhaps it has already been done:
At least they've already simulated the mind of mathematicians. :-)
... this is pure math-fun,
On 10/26/2012 5:08 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
No Roger,
In string theory dimensions are conserved but can undergo extreme
modification such as in compactification where formerly orthogonal
dimensions become embedded in 3D space in spite of what Brent thinks.
Do you have a reference that
On 10/26/2012 5:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Oct 2012, at 07:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/24/2012 9:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Or what if we don't care? We don't care about slaughtering cattle, which
are
pretty smart
as computers go. We manage not to think about starving
On 10/26/2012 6:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Well, in defense of Craig, or of the devil, this has not been proved. The problem
occurs, or at least is easy to prove only when we make the digital assumption. This
entails a truncation of the subject, local and relative (its mind code) which by the
On 10/26/2012 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Oct 2012, at 18:57, meekerdb wrote:
Good points. The contrast is usually qualia-v-quanta. I think color can be
communicated and we have an RGB language for doing so that makes it more quanta than
qualia. So extending your point
On 10/26/2012 1:31 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Yes
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Calabi-Yau_manifold#Calabi-Yau_manifolds_in_string_theory
A search on embed turns up nothing about embedding in 3-space.
Brent
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 3:01 PM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On
1 - 100 of 5480 matches
Mail list logo
