Ronald,
On 21 Dec 2008, at 15:40, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> How is there any mathematics with nothing to
>> conceive of it?
Let me try a straightest answer from math, with an example. Take the
digital or discrete line. You can map it on the integers. It is the
symmetrical extension of t
Bruno and Kim,
enjoyable discours by two math.-ly impaired minds (excuse me Kim!) - I met
several youngsters (up to 70 y.o.) who simply had no 'pitch' to math - yet
were good smart artists, even business(wo)men, parents and technicians (not
so with politicians, they are not what I call 'smart').
I
Hi Kim,
On 20 Dec 2008, at 06:06, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hmmm... My diagnostic is that you are suffering from an acute form
>> of math-anxiety. I can cure that!
>
>
> Looks like I have to say "Yes, Doctor" again!
Good!
>
>
>
>> Tell me first if you have been once mentally or physica
ent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: KIM 2.1
On 21/12/2008, at 6:12 AM, John Mikes wrote:
> Kim,
> although I try to keep my common sense, I do enjoy sometimes the
> follies in the transport and zombie etc. abominations.
> To bring in, however, why a 'machine
Hi Ronald,
On 19 Dec 2008, at 14:31, ronaldheld wrote:
>
> Bruno:
> I may have missed something in the last two days.
> I still do not understand. You say this starts with the real world,
> which to me is the physical universe/Multiverse, but it actually
> starts with arithmetic.
Your rem
On 21/12/2008, at 6:12 AM, John Mikes wrote:
> Kim,
> although I try to keep my common sense, I do enjoy sometimes the
> follies in the transport and zombie etc. abominations.
> To bring in, however, why a 'machine' should be in English a lady,
> is too much for me.
> In 'my' language there a
Kim,
although I try to keep my common sense, I do enjoy sometimes the follies in
the transport and zombie etc. abominations.
To bring in, however, why a 'machine' should be in English a lady, is too
much for me.
In 'my' language there are NO genders at all, almost as in Swedish (utrum
= human and
On 19/12/2008, at 5:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> you think it's impolite to think of a machine as a sexless "it" (as
>> in
>> Anglais) -- yet you quite arbitrarily assign a feminine gender to the
>> word!!! What's so feminine about a machine anyway? What if the
>> machine
>> is gay? "It" m
Bruno:
I may have missed something in the last two days.
I still do not understand. You say this starts with the real world,
which to me is the physical universe/Multiverse, but it actually
starts with arithmetic. How is there any mathematics with nothing to
conceive of it? What are the comp
On 18 Dec 2008, at 03:29, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
> On 16/12/2008, at 5:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> ...
>> I assume very short scanning-annihilation times and short receipting-
>> reconstitution times. Hypotheses like that, or like the fact that
>> your
>> "generalized" brain is in your skul
On 18/12/2008, at 5:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Gosh, Kim, don't tell me that you will enjoy the full UDA, because
> this would, not doubt, trig in me a strong motivation for explaining
> to you the arithmetical version of the UDA; that is; how to explain
> the UDA to the universal machi
On 16/12/2008, at 5:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> "KIM 2" is really the "2)" of the plan. See below(*)
>
> I propose to proceed by little steps, under the form of questions.
>
> MEC is correct (by assumption). This makes the following thought
> experiment possible. You get a new job, but the jo
On 17 Dec 2008, at 12:31, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
> On 16/12/2008, at 5:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Kim,
>>
>> You have accepted the artificial digital brain.
>
>
> They got the colour wrong but that's OK - it would only have been
> worth it if I'd gone for the transparent cranium option
On 16/12/2008, at 5:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Hi Kim,
>
> You have accepted the artificial digital brain.
They got the colour wrong but that's OK - it would only have been
worth it if I'd gone for the transparent cranium option as well
> This means that you
> say "yes" to the docto
Hi Kim,
You have accepted the artificial digital brain. This means that you
say "yes" to the doctor who proposes to you an artificial digital
brain. You are thus obviously open to the idea that the MEC hypothesis
in the cognitive science could be correct. Indeed, perhaps you believe
it *
15 matches
Mail list logo
