- From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED];
everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: Olympia's Beautiful and Profound Mind
Le 15-mai-05, à 15:40, Stephen Paul King a écrit :
Two points
with
appropriate soldering and coding, or would we have to surrender to dualism/
an immaterial soul/ Roger Penrose or what?
--Stathis Papaioannou
From: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Olympia's Beautiful and Profound Mind
Date: Sat, 14 May
Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: Olympia's Beautiful and Profound Mind
I appreciate that there are genuine problems in the theory of computation
as applied to intelligent
Le 15-mai-05, à 15:40, Stephen Paul King a écrit :
Two points: I am pointing out that the non-interactional idea of
computation and any form of monism will fail to account for the
necessity of 1st person viewpoints.
You know that the necessity of 1st person viewpoints is what I
consider the
PROTECTED]
To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED];
everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: Olympia's Beautiful and Profound Mind
Le 15-mai-05, à 15:40, Stephen Paul King a écrit :
Two points: I am pointing out that the non
Hal writes
We had some discussion of Maudlin's paper on the everything-list in 1999.
I summarized the paper at http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m898.html .
Subsequent discussion under the thread title implementation followed
...
I suggested a flaw in Maudlin's argument at
Jesse comments on Brian's remarkable and exceedingly valuable
explication (thanks, Brian!), even if some old-timers are
having deja-vu all over again, and are wondering if indeed
the universe isn't hopelessly cyclic after all.
triggering tape locations. To make it even simpler, the read/write
Jesse wrote:
The main objection that comes to my mind is that in order to plan ahead of
time what number should be in each tape location before the armature
begins moving and flipping bits, you need to have already done the
computation in the regular way--so Olympia is not really computing
sure that I am being a fooling tyro is this post. ;-)
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:00 AM
Subject: RE: Olympia's Beautiful and Profound Mind
Hal writes
We
Thanks for that very nice summary. I let people think about it. We have discussed it a long time before on the Everything-list. A keyword to find that discussion in the everything list archive is crackpot as Jacques Mallah named the argument.
Good we can come back on this, because we didn't
We had some discussion of Maudlin's paper on the everything-list in 1999.
I summarized the paper at http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m898.html .
Subsequent discussion under the thread title implementation followed
up; I will point to my posting at
Hal wrote:
We had some discussion of Maudlin's paper on the everything-list in 1999.
I summarized the paper at http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m898.html
.
Subsequent discussion under the thread title implementation followed
up; I will point to my posting at
Brian Scurfield wrote:
Bruno recently urged me to read up on Tim Maudlin's movie-graph argument
against the computational hypothesis. I did so. Here is my version of the
argument.
According to the computational hypothesis, consciousness supervenes on
brain
activity
13 matches
Mail list logo
