On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 5:16:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Apr 2013, at 20:41, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
>
> > Any "aesthetic phenomena" or for that matter anything else we
> > experience is described by the known laws of physics which tells you
> > what matters is the wa
On 22 Apr 2013, at 20:41, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Any "aesthetic phenomena" or for that matter anything else we
experience is described by the known laws of physics which tells you
what matters is the way information is processed.
So, I'm not conviced there really exists a well defined pro
On 22 Apr 2013, at 18:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, April 22, 2013 10:05:17 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Apr 2013, at 13:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, April 22, 2013 4:56:08 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 21 Apr 2013, at 19:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >
On Monday, April 22, 2013 2:41:58 PM UTC-4, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
>
> Any "aesthetic phenomena" or for that matter anything else we
> experience
There isn't anything else we (or anything else) can experience besides
aesthetic phenomena.
> is described by the known laws of physics which
Any "aesthetic phenomena" or for that matter anything else we
experience is described by the known laws of physics which tells you
what matters is the way information is processed.
So, I'm not conviced there really exists a well defined problem here
with consciousness. We're told by philospher
On Monday, April 22, 2013 10:05:17 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Apr 2013, at 13:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Monday, April 22, 2013 4:56:08 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> > On 21 Apr 2013, at 19:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sunday,
On 22 Apr 2013, at 13:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, April 22, 2013 4:56:08 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Apr 2013, at 19:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:20:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 20 Apr 2013, at 23:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>>
>>
On Monday, April 22, 2013 4:56:08 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 21 Apr 2013, at 19:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:20:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> > On 20 Apr 2013, at 23:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> But what makes
On 21 Apr 2013, at 19:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:20:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Apr 2013, at 23:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
But what makes the laws of physics turn into physics? What makes
physics follow the laws?
Study UDA. It answers this precis
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 1:49:04 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal
> > wrote:
>
> >> The reason nobody has a answer to the hard problem is that nobody has
>> clearly explained exactly what the problem is or what the answer is
>> expected to do.
>
On Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:20:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Apr 2013, at 23:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, April 20, 2013 2:51:23 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20 Apr 2013, at 17:56, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>> > On 4/20/2013 2:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Apr 2013, at 23:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 2:51:23 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Apr 2013, at 17:56, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/20/2013 2:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 20 Apr 2013, at 05:26, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/19/2013 5:31 PM, John Clark w
On 20 Apr 2013, at 21:50, John Mikes wrote:
Brent and Bruno:
Brent I love you for your scientific self-consciousness:
"I'm not so sure of the problem, but I'm pretty sure of the solution."
That's the 'end' of all. Religions like it.
Here is what I see as the (hard problem) problem: people like
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 2:51:23 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Apr 2013, at 17:56, meekerdb wrote:
>
> > On 4/20/2013 2:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
> >> On 20 Apr 2013, at 05:26, meekerdb wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 4/19/2013 5:31 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> The reaso
On 20 Apr 2013, at 19:49, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> The reason nobody has a answer to the hard problem is that
nobody has clearly explained exactly what the problem is or what
the answer is expected to do.
> The hard problem is only the
Brent and Bruno:
*Brent* I love you for your scientific self-consciousness:
*"I'm not so sure of the problem, but I'm pretty sure of the solution."*
That's the 'end' of all. Religions like it.
Here is what I see as the (hard problem) problem: people like to think in
the mind-body restriction, as B
On 20 Apr 2013, at 17:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/20/2013 2:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Apr 2013, at 05:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/19/2013 5:31 PM, John Clark wrote:
The reason nobody has a answer to the hard problem is that nobody
has clearly explained exactly what the problem is or w
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> The reason nobody has a answer to the hard problem is that nobody has
> clearly explained exactly what the problem is or what the answer is
> expected to do.
>
> > The hard problem is only the antic mind-body problem, and what you say
> is
On 4/20/2013 2:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Apr 2013, at 05:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/19/2013 5:31 PM, John Clark wrote:
The reason nobody has a answer to the hard problem is that nobody has clearly
explained exactly what the problem is or what the answer is expected to do.
I'm not so
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 5:18:01 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Apr 2013, at 02:31, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> The reason nobody has a answer to the hard problem is that nobody has
> clearly explained exactly what the problem is or what the answer is
> expected to do.
>
>
> The hard
On 20 Apr 2013, at 05:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/19/2013 5:31 PM, John Clark wrote:
The reason nobody has a answer to the hard problem is that nobody
has clearly explained exactly what the problem is or what the
answer is expected to do.
I'm not so sure of the problem, but I'm pretty sure
On 20 Apr 2013, at 02:31, John Clark wrote:
The reason nobody has a answer to the hard problem is that nobody
has clearly explained exactly what the problem is or what the answer
is expected to do.
The hard problem is only the antic mind-body problem, and what you say
is that you don't
On Friday, April 19, 2013 11:26:28 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 4/19/2013 5:31 PM, John Clark wrote:
> >
> > The reason nobody has a answer to the hard problem is that nobody has
> clearly explained
> > exactly what the problem is or what the answer is expected to do.
>
> I'm not so sure of
On 4/19/2013 5:31 PM, John Clark wrote:
The reason nobody has a answer to the hard problem is that nobody has clearly explained
exactly what the problem is or what the answer is expected to do.
I'm not so sure of the problem, but I'm pretty sure of the solution. When we can build AI
robots
On Friday, April 19, 2013 8:31:39 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> The reason nobody has a answer to the hard problem is that nobody has
> clearly explained exactly what the problem is or what the answer is
> expected to do.
>
Yeah, it's a big mystery. To you. Like Free Will.
The context of
The reason nobody has a answer to the hard problem is that nobody has
clearly explained exactly what the problem is or what the answer is
expected to do.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this
On Friday, April 19, 2013 6:59:28 PM UTC-4, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
>
> It is whatever an algorithm is computing. All the information is in the
> computational state. If you have pain in your knee then exactly what
> you are experiencing must be unambiguously present in the computational
> sta
It is whatever an algorithm is computing. All the information is in the
computational state. If you have pain in your knee then exactly what
you are experiencing must be unambiguously present in the computational
state of your brain.
Saibal
--
You received this message because you are subscri
28 matches
Mail list logo
