On 25 Oct 2012, at 02:56, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 21 Oct 2012, at 18:42, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Hi John,
On 20 Oct 2012, at 23:16, John Mikes
On 25 Oct 2012, at 03:27, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:04 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote
I think you are missing something. It is a problem that I noticed
after watching the movie
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:15 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
You will be placed into a room with an exact clone of yourself and you
will be given a gun. If you shoot your clone you can leave that room and
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
A identical twin is a clone, you're talking about a exact duplicate and
I would shoot him. I was given a gun and I was forced to make a very
emotional decision and my duplicate was not, so I have intense memories
that he
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Oct 2012, at 18:42, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi John,
On 20 Oct 2012, at 23:16, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
especially in my identification as
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:04 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote
I think you are missing something. It is a problem that I noticed after
watching the movie The Prestige
In my opinion The Prestige is the best
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 Oct 24, 2012, at 9:02 PM, meekerdb 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
wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote
I think you are missing
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 Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:00 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/24/2012 8:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Oct 24, 2012, at 9:02 PM, meekerdb 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
On 22 Oct 2012, at 18:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/22/2012 12:51 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/22 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:46 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I stopped
2012/10/22 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:46 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I stopped reading after your proof of the existence of a new type of
indeterminacy never seen before because
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If there is a top-down effect of the mind on the atoms then there we
would expect some scientific evidence of this.
These words are a scientific evidence of this. The atoms of my brain are
being manipulated from
On 21 Oct 2012, at 18:42, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Hi John,
On 20 Oct 2012, at 23:16, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
especially in my identification as responding to relations.
Now the Self? IT certainly refers to a more
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote
I think you are missing something. It is a problem that I noticed after
watching the movie The Prestige
In my opinion The Prestige is the best movie made in the last 10 years,
and this is one of those rare instances
On 21 Oct 2012, at 19:46, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I stopped reading after your proof of the existence of a new
type of indeterminacy never seen before because the proof was in
error, so there was no point in reading about things
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
, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-21, 09:56:39
Subject: Re: Continuous Game of Life
Hi John,
On 20 Oct 2012, at 23:16, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
especially in my identification
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The atoms in my brain don't have to know how to read Chinese. They only
need to know how to be carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc. atoms. The complex
behaviour which is reading Chinese comes from the interaction of billions
On 21.10.2012 10:05 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I don't think that is true. The other way around makes just as much
sense of not more: Reading Chinese is a simple behavior which
drives the behavior
On 20 Oct 2012, at 19:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 19, 2012 3:29:39 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Oct 2012, at 17:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 10:16:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On 20 Oct 2012, at 19:29, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I have no idea what that means, not a clue
Probably for the same reason that you stop at step 3 in the UD
Argument.
Probably. I remember I stopped reading after your proof of the
: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-17, 10:13:37
Subject: Re: Continuous Game of Life
On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:37, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:40 PM, meekerdb wrote:
If consciousness doesn't do anything then Evolution can't see it, so
how and why did Evolution
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 4:06:16 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
The atoms in my brain don't have to know how to read Chinese. They only
need to know how to be carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc. atoms. The
On 10/21/2012 4:05 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The atoms in my brain don't have to know how to read Chinese. They only
need to know how to be carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc. atoms. The complex
behaviour which is
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi John,
On 20 Oct 2012, at 23:16, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
especially in my identification as responding to relations.
Now the Self? IT certainly refers to a more sophisticated level of
thinking, more so than the
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 20 Oct 2012, at 19:29, John Clark wrote:
Well I don't know about you but I don't think my consciousness was there
before Evolution figured out how to make brains, I believe this because I
can't seem to remember
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I stopped reading after your proof of the existence of a new type of
indeterminacy never seen before because the proof was in error, so there
was no point in reading about things built on top of that
From your error you have
2012/10/21 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I stopped reading after your proof of the existence of a new type of
indeterminacy never seen before because the proof was in error, so there
was no point in reading about things built
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-21, 09:56:39
Subject: Re: Continuous Game of Life
Hi John,
On 20 Oct 2012, at 23:16, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
especially in my identification as responding to relations.
Now the Self? IT certainly refers to a more sophisticated level
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:46 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I stopped reading after your proof of the existence of a new type of
indeterminacy never seen before because the proof was in error, so there
was no point
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
If there is a top-down effect of the mind on the atoms then there we
would expect some scientific evidence of this. Evidence would
constitute, for example, neurons firing when measurements of
transmembrane
On 20 Oct 2012, at 07:15, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Darwin does not need to be wrong. Consciousness role can be
deeper, in the evolution/selection of the laws of physics from the
coherent dreams (computations from the 1p
On Friday, October 19, 2012 3:29:39 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Oct 2012, at 17:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 10:16:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Two men and two women live together. The woman has
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 1:01:51 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
So lets see, a giant junkyard magnet is a devastating logical
argument but a junkyard car crusher is not. Explain to me how that
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I have no idea what that means, not a clue
Probably for the same reason that you stop at step 3 in the UD Argument.
Probably. I remember I stopped reading after your proof of the existence of
a new type of indeterminacy never
On Oct 15, 2012, at 4:10 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
But since you misunderstand the first assumption you misunderstand the
whole argument.
Nope. You misunderstand my argument completely.
Perhaps I do, but you specifically misunderstand that the argument
On Saturday, October 20, 2012 1:47:28 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Oct 15, 2012, at 4:10 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
But since you misunderstand the first assumption you misunderstand the
whole argument.
Nope. You misunderstand my argument
-list
Time: 2012-10-17, 10:13:37
Subject: Re: Continuous Game of Life
On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:37, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:40 PM, meekerdb wrote:
If consciousness doesn't do anything then Evolution can't see it, so
how and why did Evolution produce it? The fact
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-17, 10:13:37
Subject: Re: Continuous Game of Life
On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:37, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:40 PM, meekerdb wrote:
If consciousness doesn't do anything then Evolution
. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-17, 10:13:37
Subject: Re: Continuous Game of Life
On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:37, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:40 PM, meekerdb wrote:
If consciousness doesn't do
On 17 Oct 2012, at 17:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 10:16:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Two men and two women live together. The woman has a child. 2+2=5
You mean two men + two women + a baby = five persons.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
So lets see, a giant junkyard magnet is a devastating logical argument
but a junkyard car crusher is not. Explain to me how that works.
Because talking about how you want to kill me in an argument about
computers
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Darwin does not need to be wrong. Consciousness role can be deeper, in
the evolution/selection of the laws of physics from the coherent dreams
(computations from the 1p view) in arithmetic.
I have no idea what that
On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:37, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:40 PM, meekerdb 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 to this means your ideas are
On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Two men and two women live together. The woman has a child. 2+2=5
You mean two men + two women + a baby = five persons.
You need the arithmetical 2+2=4, and 4+1 = 5, in your argument.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 10:16:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Two men and two women live together. The woman has a child. 2+2=5
You mean two men + two women + a baby = five persons.
You need the arithmetical 2+2=4, and 4+1 = 5,
On 16 Oct 2012, at 21:55, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
corn starch is not a fluid (newtinian or not). It is a solid and
when dissolved in water (or whatever?) it makes a N.N.fluid -
My question about it's 'live, or not' status is:
does it provide METABOLISM and REPAIR ?
I doubt
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-17, 10:13:37
Subject: Re: Continuous Game of Life
On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:37, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:40 PM, meekerdb wrote:
If consciousness doesn't do anything then Evolution can't see it, so how
and why did Evolution
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
I know you don't have a proof of the Goldbach Conjecture. Well OK, I
don't know that with absolute certainty, maybe you have a proof but are
keeping it secret for some strange reason, but my knowledge is more than
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:40 PM, meekerdb 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 to
this means your ideas are fatally flawed.
I don't see this as a *fatal*
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:13:55 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I know you don't have a proof of the Goldbach Conjecture. Well OK, I
don't know that with absolute certainty, maybe you have a
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 to
Bruno:
corn starch is not a fluid (newtinian or not). It is a solid and when
dissolved in water (or whatever?) it makes a N.N.fluid -My question
about it's 'live, or not' status is:
does it provide METABOLISM and REPAIR ?
I doubt it.
Do not misunderstand me, please: this is not my
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Since we know that our consciousness
You don't know diddly squat about our consciousness, you only know about
your consciousness; assuming of course that you are conscious, if not then
you don't even know that.
is exquisitely
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
I think he [Chambers] goes wrong by assuming a priori that consciousness
is functional,
I've asked you this question dozens of times but you have never coherently
answered it: If consciousness doesn't do anything
On Monday, October 15, 2012 12:14:55 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
Since we know that our consciousness
You don't know diddly squat about our consciousness, you only know about
your consciousness; assuming of
On Monday, October 15, 2012 12:38:30 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I think he [Chambers] goes wrong by assuming a priori that
consciousness is functional,
I've asked you this question dozens of
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
You don't know diddly squat about our consciousness, you only know
about your consciousness; assuming of course that you are conscious, if not
then you don't even know that.
If that were true, then you don't know
On Monday, October 15, 2012 1:02:05 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You don't know diddly squat about our consciousness, you only know
about your consciousness; assuming of course that you are
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 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 the threshold.
Let's see how computer fares under a
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 Monday, October 15, 2012 3:09:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
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
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 1:04:54 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
No, he does NOT assume this. He assumes the opposite: that
consciousness is a property of the brain and CANNOT be reproduced by
On Friday, October 12, 2012 10:23:57 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Oct 2012, at 14:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
They are certainly cool looking and biomorphic. The question I have
is, at what point do they begin to have experiences...or do you
think that those blobs have
On Friday, October 12, 2012 4:42:56 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 05:50:11AM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
They are certainly cool looking and biomorphic. The question I have is,
at
what point do they begin to have experiences...or do you think that
those
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 02:11:59PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 12, 2012 4:42:56 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
Assuming this system exhibits universality like the original GoL, and
assuming COMP, then some patterns will exhibit consciousness. However,
the
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 7:41:10 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 02:11:59PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 12, 2012 4:42:56 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
Assuming this system exhibits universality like the original GoL, and
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
I know you don't believe in COMP, but assuming COMP (I am open-minded
on the topic), mass and chemical composition are irrelevant to
consciousness.
Chalmers' fading qualia argument purports to prove the
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Since we know that our consciousness is exquisitely sensitive to particular
masses of specific chemicals, yet relatively tolerant of other kinds of
chemical changes, it suggests that we should strongly suspect that
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 7:54:44 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au javascript: wrote:
I know you don't believe in COMP, but assuming COMP (I am open-minded
on the topic), mass and chemical composition are irrelevant
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:05:26 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Since we know that our consciousness is exquisitely sensitive to
particular
masses of specific chemicals, yet relatively tolerant
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Fading qualia is the only argument of Chalmers' that I disagree with. It's a
natural mistake to make, but I think he goes wrong by assuming a priori that
consciousness is functional, i.e. that personal consciousness
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:05:58 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Fading qualia is the only argument of Chalmers' that I disagree with.
It's a
natural mistake to make, but I think he goes wrong by
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
No, he does NOT assume this. He assumes the opposite: that
consciousness is a property of the brain and CANNOT be reproduced by
reproducing the behaviour in another substrate.
I'm not talking about what the
On 11 Oct 2012, at 23:47, Russell Standish wrote:
That's serious cool! I love the comment posted Stephen Wolfram is
very angry!
They do discrete time (Euler integration), but one could easily make
it continuous by replacing it with a Runge-Kutta integration scheme.
Thanks for posting this.
They are certainly cool looking and biomorphic. The question I have is, at
what point do they begin to have experiences...or do you think that those
blobs have experiences already?
Would it give them more of a human experience if an oscillating
smiley-face/frowny-face algorithm were added
On 12 Oct 2012, at 14:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
They are certainly cool looking and biomorphic. The question I have
is, at what point do they begin to have experiences...or do you
think that those blobs have experiences already?
Would it give them more of a human experience if an
10/12/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-12, 10:23:52
Subject: Re: Continuous Game of Life
On 12 Oct 2012, at 14:50, Craig Weinberg wrote
the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-12, 08:50:11
Subject: Re: Continuous Game of Life
They are certainly cool looking and biomorphic. The question I have is, at what
point do they begin to have experiences...or do you think that those blobs
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 05:50:11AM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
They are certainly cool looking and biomorphic. The question I have is, at
what point do they begin to have experiences...or do you think that those
blobs have experiences already?
Would it give them more of a human experience
Hi Russell,
Even more suggestive is its similarity to Butschli protocells... see
this video for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tmTDvL1AUs and many others uploaded by
Rachel Armstrong... as she describes them a simple self-organizing
system that is formed by the addition of a drop of
That's serious cool! I love the comment posted Stephen Wolfram is
very angry!
They do discrete time (Euler integration), but one could easily make
it continuous by replacing it with a Runge-Kutta integration scheme.
Thanks for posting this.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 04:14:15PM -0500, Jason Resch
At 02:17 AM 00/01/10 , Fred Chen wrote:
Animals can display signs of self-awareness and consciousness. They do not
possess all the mental faculties that humans have that we may take for
granted. For example, as mentioned by Bruno, introspection and
inquisitiveness.
Is inquisitiveness different
In a message dated 01/08/2000 11:47:44 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since all experience is based on first person logic and first person
observation, the frame of reference is necessarily the Self. Hence the
validity of the RSSA. In so far as the ASSA is
George Levy wrote (cf original message below):
OK. I agree with this. And, isn't it how we treat animals? We hunt them,
kill
them, eat them, torture them in the name of science. Yet from their own
points of view they are suffering.
Yes. That is sad.
BM: But without changing
a lot your
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
Hal Finney writes:
It has been found that Life is Universal, meaning that you can
construct a Universal Turing Machine out of the Life rules. It would
then be possible to program it to simulate any mathematical or logical
system, hence SAS's should be
Ask it.
Have you ever read 'The Intentional Stance' by
Daniel Dennett?
Jerry
Fred Chen wrote:
How would you verify your Life pattern has achieved SAS status?
Jerry Clark wrote:
More relevantly, it is posulated as highly likely that, starting with a random
Life
formation, SAS's will
How would you verify your Life pattern has achieved SAS status?
Ask it.
This is indeed a creative solution. You are presuming, though, that the SAS's in your
Life world will understand you. The only way you can know this is if you had encoded
their language/communication channel beforehand
How would you verify your Life pattern has achieved SAS status?
Jerry Clark wrote:
More relevantly, it is posulated as highly likely that, starting with a random
Life
formation, SAS's will evolve of their own accord. One proves this by showing
that
our UTM is also a universal constructor
Jerry Clark wrote:
Such 'Life' evolution raises an interesting question: These SAS's would ...
Sooner or later a physicists would hear about
this new development and the realisation would be made that their universe
*is* a Life simulation.
Would it? This is a questions I've thought
93 matches
Mail list logo
