Check out The Whipping Star by Frank Herbert. A neat story but kind of
twisted.
The story is about stars that are conscious.
Robert W.
could be conscious/aware in a way that we might recognize.
If so, then stars too would probably have a very different idea
about foundations than we
--- scerir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
rwas :
To be able to say that a process will be random at infinite time
would seem to
imply a deterministic process that can generate non determinism. :)
That deterministic process might be the construction of
this true random number generator:
http
Hello,
jamikes wrote:
As much as I enjoyed last years's discussions in worldview speculations, I
get frustrated by the lately emerged word-playing about concepts used in
just different contents from the conventional.
May I submit a (trivial) proof for immortality in this sense:
Death
Norman Samish wrote:
Suppose an ideal random number generator produces, every microsecond, either
a zero or a one and records it on a tape. After a long time interval one
would expect the tape to contain a random mix of zeroes and ones with the
number of zeroes equal to the number of ones.
a few weeks ago. One of the interesting things I learned was that the
reason many Christians can't accept the theory of evolution is that
they
have to believe all of mankind descended from Adam and Eve,
Adam is the mind, Eve is the soul.
This is a symbolic story of the descent of humanity.
This might be little consolation for those who see this place as the
only existence.
From my perspective, James has gone home. He's checked out of school for
the summer and left
his books and his school uniform behind.
I seriously doubt he'll miss being here.
For what it's worth.
Robert W.
Pete Carlton wrote:
Hi all,
I've been lurking for months and am continually amazed by the discussions
going on - I got into this list after branching out from philosophy of
mind, after something like the GP/UDA (though completely lacking in
rigor) had surfaced in a discussion I was in about
Also the personal religion question: what is religion?
What man does to hide himself from himself.
definitely
not the
fable with the old bearded gentleman in the nightgown.
Some alternate concepts on god in terms of observations (made by me)
-when a man wants his way with a beautiful
--- Charles Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of rwas
Eh? If I understood this statement then I must object. I have quite
clear
memories of before-death, during-death, and after-death. I realize
Brent Meeker wrote:
Hello Charles
On 23-Oct-01, Charles Goodwin wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 October 2001 12:06 p.m.
To: Charles Goodwin
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ODP: Free
--- Charles Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: rwas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, 15 September 2001 3:08 p.m.
Sequential, temporal,
in-the-box thinking is not how to transcend the physical in my
view.
I think some of the people here
Hello,
One might take the position that consciousness just is..., and is focused at a
particular point we might call
an identity. If we assume time is an illusion, the idea of being much older
than the apparent vehicle consciousness,
would hold.
As for the statement: I exist because somewhere I
--- rwas rwas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course we are hard-wired to perceive the
passage
of time,
three-dimensional space, and the pleasure of sex.
Physics and Darwin
provide explanations of this. What's your
explanation?...oh, never
mind, I know...It just is.
Brent
I think the problem is that folks are assuming that
the only way you can tell whether you are awake or
dreaming is by sensory input limited physical senses,
ie., 5 senses.
If one pays attention, one can be aware of a number of
senses that are not quantified by popular
understanding.
One of
Hello,
--- Joel Dobrzelewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell and Brent:
I understand this is an extreme position, but I
state it this way on
purpose: to bring the issue to the foreground and
get to the heart of the
problem of science today.
As long as we insist that continuous
You must have a particular problem in mind to have
made this
comment.
I do, a set of problems:
1. Machine cooperation in fabrication
robots and other agents that can cooperate in
complex tasks such as manufacturing
non-robot-friendly components.
2. Synthetic Autonomous Agent
Just as an example, he says most philosophers
would agree that
[]A-A, where []A is interpreted as knowing A. This
is clearly a
different meaning of the word to know that we use
here in
Australia.
I get the impression folks here assume that when one
person knows something, that only
--- Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert W. wrote:
[...]
Logic is a powerful tool for analysis. Some use it
intuitively, you people seem to have mastered
formalized, symbolic logic. That's great.
Logic is just a branch of mathematics which studies
discourse and their
I was'nt aware if was a diadic operator.
My boolean interpretation of what's been presented:
OR:
AB:C
00 0
01 1
10 1
11 1
IF:
AB:C
11 1
10 0
01 1
00 1
Can someone explain the IF table?
Robert W.
--- Scott D. Yelich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 [EMAIL
. It seems to require forming specifics for
things lost in the translation to specifics. For me,
understanding of AI and consciousness is the kind of
thing one interprets, knowing it's only a limited
expression.
Robert W.
--- Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05-Mar-01, rwas rwas wrote:
I
Hello,
I'm new in here. I apologize in advance for any
inadvertent transgressions...
Second, there is no way of knowing whether
you are in a so called
real world or in a virtual world. So if I
don't care about virtual
people, I don't even know whether or not I care
about myself.
--- rwas rwas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had proposed an experiment very similar to a
friend
some years back concerning identity and
consciousness.
We start with a machine that can download, upload,
and
run consciousness. It can also manipulate the
functioning of the brain
Prove is a strong word. I don't think you can
prove that we perceive
3-space...
I guess it depends on what you mean by perceive.
If I develop software that behaves a certain way in
3-space combining observations, a plan, and then
demonstrating an action in that 3-space, I'd say that
system
--- rwas rwas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
versions of many-worlds theories, one might
consider a different approach.
By deleting certain sectors of one's memory
one
should be able to travel
to different branches of the multiverse.
Suppose
you are diagnosed
24 matches
Mail list logo
