Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 23, 9:50 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > My own position is that whatever is really real, it is probably > completely unknowable (like Kant's noumenon). We can only know about > phenomena. This leads me to the radical proposal that perhaps all of > phenomena can be explained by reference to

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 06:37:16AM -0700, 1Z wrote: > > You are playing on two meanings of "fact"; that something is not > known until time T does not mean it pops into existence at time > T. Truth is not existence. Existence is a muddy concept. Truth (even relative truth) is certainly a possible

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 22 Jul 2011, at 22:54, meekerdb wrote: On 7/22/2011 9:40 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Before that question, you need the question: does maths exist independently. If you want to debate this question I am happy to. It is the assumption made by most mathematicians and scientists. Jason Ac

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 22 Jul 2011, at 21:08, meekerdb wrote: On 7/22/2011 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jul 2011, at 17:54, meekerdb wrote: On 7/21/2011 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But I think you beg the question by demanding an axiomatic definition and rejecting ostensive ones. Why? The point is

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 22 Jul 2011, at 14:17, 1Z wrote: On Jul 22, 10:08 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jul 2011, at 17:54, meekerdb wrote: On 7/21/2011 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But I think you beg the question by demanding an axiomatic definition and rejecting ostensive ones. Why? The point is that

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 7/22/2011 9:40 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Before that question, you need the question: does maths exist independently. If you want to debate this question I am happy to. It is the assumption made by most mathematicians and scientists. Jason Actually I was friends with two professo

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 7/22/2011 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Jul 2011, at 17:54, meekerdb wrote: On 7/21/2011 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But I think you beg the question by demanding an axiomatic definition and rejecting ostensive ones. Why? The point is that ostensive definition does not work for j

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:31 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > On Jul 22, 3:59 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:01 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > Things don't need to move to compute, there just need to be well > defined > > > > relations between the bits. > > > > > And every computation eith

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 22, 4:04 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:08 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > On Jul 22, 6:24 am, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > > > ** > > > > On 7/21/2011 8:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:29 PM, meeke

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 22, 3:59 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:01 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > > Things don't need to move to compute, there just need to be well defined > > > relations between the bits. > > > And every computation either stops or doens't? There seems > > to me a mismatch between ti

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:08 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > On Jul 22, 6:24 am, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > > ** > > > On 7/21/2011 8:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:29 PM, meekerdb > wrote: > > > > >> On 7/21/2011 1:16 PM, J

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 7:01 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > > Things don't need to move to compute, there just need to be well defined > > relations between the bits. > > And every computation either stops or doens't? There seems > to me a mismatch between timelessness and computation. > Not at all. Consi

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:55 AM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > If they are not contingent then you accept they exist even without the > > existence of the physical universe? > > No. They are epistemically necessary. That says nothing about > their existence. The argument is that since they can make no > di

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 22, 10:08 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 21 Jul 2011, at 17:54, meekerdb wrote: > > > On 7/21/2011 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>> But I think you beg the question by demanding an axiomatic   > >>> definition and rejecting ostensive ones. > > >> Why? > >> The point is that ostensive de

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 22, 6:24 am, Jason Resch wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > ** > > On 7/21/2011 8:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:29 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > >>  On 7/21/2011 1:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:30 PM, meekerd

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 22, 4:08 am, Jason Resch wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:29 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > ** > > On 7/21/2011 1:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > >>  On 7/21/2011 11:03 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:54 AM, meeker

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 22, 1:53 am, Jason Resch wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 7:43 PM, 1Z wrote: > > > On Jul 21, 11:55 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:55 PM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > Assume both matter and number relations exist. With comp, the > > existence > > > > of > > > > > numb

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 21 Jul 2011, at 20:30, meekerdb wrote: On 7/21/2011 11:03 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:54 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/21/2011 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Axiomatics are already in Platonia so of course that forces computation to be there. The computations a

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 21 Jul 2011, at 22:54, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:35 PM, 1Z wrote: On Jul 11, 4:51 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > automatic consequences which > > arise unbidden from "from relations that are defined by > > computations". > > Yes, as you say below, it is a result of proc

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 21 Jul 2011, at 17:54, meekerdb wrote: On 7/21/2011 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But I think you beg the question by demanding an axiomatic definition and rejecting ostensive ones. Why? The point is that ostensive definition does not work for justifying an ontology. That seems to be

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: > ** > On 7/21/2011 8:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:29 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 7/21/2011 1:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> On 7/21/2011 11:03 AM, J

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 7/21/2011 8:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:29 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 7/21/2011 1:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:30 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 7/21/2011 11:03 AM, Jason Res

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:29 PM, meekerdb wrote: > ** > On 7/21/2011 1:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 7/21/2011 11:03 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:54 AM, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> On 7/21/2011 2:27 AM, Br

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 7/21/2011 1:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:30 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 7/21/2011 11:03 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:54 AM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 7/21/2011 2:27 AM, Bruno Ma

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

>Our brains are obviously doing it with >the colorless nerve impulses (information) that comes in from the optic >nerve. I think most people lack appreciation for just how complex the brain >is, and conclude this or that is impossible for any process (no matter how >complex) to do. The brain has

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 7:43 PM, 1Z wrote: > > > On Jul 21, 11:55 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:55 PM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > Assume both matter and number relations exist. With comp, the > existence > > > of > > > > number relations explains the existence of matter, but

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

>> In my view, physics, experience, and the underlying relation between >> them are all co-phenomenal and co-epiphenomenal > >I have no idea what that means. I'm trying to say that from the vantage point of physical externality, experience is deterministically caused by physical laws, but from th

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 21, 11:55 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:55 PM, 1Z wrote: > > > > Assume both matter and number relations exist.  With comp, the existence > > of > > > number relations explains the existence of matter, but the existence of > > > matter does not explain the existence

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 7/21/2011 3:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:55 PM, 1Z > wrote: > Assume both matter and number relations exist. With comp, the existence of > number relations explains the existence of matter, but the existence of > ma

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:02 PM, 1Z wrote: > > > On Jul 21, 9:54 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:35 PM, 1Z wrote: > > > > > On Jul 11, 4:51 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > > > automatic consequences which > > > > > arise unbidden from "from relations that are defined by >

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:55 PM, 1Z wrote: > > > Assume both matter and number relations exist. With comp, the existence > of > > number relations explains the existence of matter, but the existence of > > matter does not explain the existence of number relations. > > Yes it does. Any number rel

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 21, 9:54 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:35 PM, 1Z wrote: > > > On Jul 11, 4:51 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > automatic consequences which > > > > arise unbidden from "from relations that are defined by > > > > computations". > > > > Yes, as you say below, it is a

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 21, 8:23 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > 1) if conventional physics gives an adequate causal account,does and > > experience is explained > > with New Physics, does that make experience epiphenomenal? > > In my view, physics, experience, and the underlying relation between > them are all co

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 21, 7:03 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:54 AM, meekerdb wrote: > > On 7/21/2011 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >>  Axiomatics are already in Platonia so of course that forces computation > >>> to be there. > > >> The computations are concrete relations. > > > If t

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 20, 5:42 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 7/20/2011 6:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > >>> I'm afraid this is not true. Some people even argue that computation > >>> does not exist, the physical world only approximate them, according to > >>> them. > >>> I have not yet seen a physical definiti

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 20, 2:43 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 20 Jul 2011, at 15:21, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 5:53 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 08 Jul 2011, at 02:35, meekerdb wrote: > > >>> On 7/7/2011 4:59 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:12:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrot

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 12, 11:50 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > My view of awareness is now subtractive and holographic (think pinhole > camera), so that I would read fading qualia in a different way. More > like dementia.. attenuating connectivity between different aspects of > the self, not changing qualia nece

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

>i don't see a much of a connection between those statements. >Complexity could be necessary but insufficient. It is, >for instance, difficult to see how you could have >simple colour qualia. Colours represent a lot of intormation. Yes, I agree, complexity could be necessary but insufficient. Just

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 3:35 PM, 1Z wrote: > > > On Jul 11, 4:51 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > automatic consequences which > > > arise unbidden from "from relations that are defined by > > > computations". > > > > Yes, as you say below, it is a result of processing > > Although no one knows ho

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > >Assume both matter and number relations exist. With comp, the existence > of > >number relations explains the existence of matter, but the existence of > >matter does not explain the existence of number relations. It is > therefore > >a s

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 11, 4:51 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > > automatic consequences which > > arise unbidden from "from relations that are defined by > > computations". > > Yes, as you say below, it is a result of processing Although no one knows how -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:30 PM, meekerdb wrote: > ** > On 7/21/2011 11:03 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:54 AM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 7/21/2011 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Axiomatics are already in Platonia so of course that forces computation

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 11, 4:48 am, Jason Resch wrote: > This philosophy has already shown great success for anything that stores, > transmits or processes information.  Data can be stored as magnetic poles on > hard drives and tape, different levels of reflectivity on CDs and DVDs, as > charges of electrons i

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 11, 2:52 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > I'm saying that > the potential for awareness must be built in to matter at the lowest > level or not at all. Complexity alone cannot cause awareness in > inanimate objects, let alone the kind of rich, ididopathic phenomena > we think of as qualia. i

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

> 1) if conventional physics gives an adequate causal account,does and > experience is explained > with New Physics, does that make experience epiphenomenal? In my view, physics, experience, and the underlying relation between them are all co-phenomenal and co-epiphenomenal > 2) What is it abou

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

>Assume both matter and number relations exist. With comp, the existence of >number relations explains the existence of matter, but the existence of >matter does not explain the existence of number relations. It is therefore >a simpler theory to suppose the existence of number relations is fundam

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 7/21/2011 11:03 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:54 AM, meekerdb > wrote: On 7/21/2011 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Axiomatics are already in Platonia so of course that forces computation to be there.

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 10, 2:20 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > >You might find out that molecules in brain are unconscious too. > > The fact that consciousness changes predictably when different > molecules are introduced to the brain, and that we are able to produce > different molecules by changing the content o

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:54 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 7/21/2011 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> >> >> Axiomatics are already in Platonia so of course that forces computation >>> to be there. >>> >> >> The computations are concrete relations. >> > > If the are concrete then we should be ab

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 7/21/2011 2:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But I think you beg the question by demanding an axiomatic definition and rejecting ostensive ones. Why? The point is that ostensive definition does not work for justifying an ontology. That seems to be a non-sequitur. How can any kind of definitio

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 20 Jul 2011, at 18:42, meekerdb wrote: On 7/20/2011 6:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm afraid this is not true. Some people even argue that computation does not exist, the physical world only approximate them, according to them. I have not yet seen a physical definition of computation

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

Bruno: You may be correct that it is only an intellectual exercise. How many lines of LISP code comprises the UD? I may have been infomally exposed to LISP in college, but that was decades ago. Ronald On Jul 20, 5:01 am, Bruno Marchal wrot

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 7/20/2011 6:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I'm afraid this is not true. Some people even argue that computation does not exist, the physical world only approximate them, according to them. I have not yet seen a physical definition of computation How about "a series of causally connected states

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 20 Jul 2011, at 15:21, 1Z wrote: On Jul 8, 5:53 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jul 2011, at 02:35, meekerdb wrote: On 7/7/2011 4:59 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:12:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: One that happens to be incompatible with theory that our minds

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 6, 12:44 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > Constantine, this is a rather trollish comment coming from an ignorant > position. > > Let me put the following gedanken experiment - consider the > possibility that T. Rex might be either green or blue creatures, and > that either possibility is phy

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 8, 5:53 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 08 Jul 2011, at 02:35, meekerdb wrote: > > > > > On 7/7/2011 4:59 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:12:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > > One that happens to be incompatible with > theory that our minds are computer pr

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 8, 12:59 am, Russell Standish wrote: > On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:12:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > > >One that happens to be incompatible with > > >theory that our minds are computer programs. > > > Can you explain that?  It seems to be Bruno's central claim, but so > > far as I can see h

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 12:16:01PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > On 7/19/2011 11:32 AM, ronaldheld wrote: > >Given limited resources and for only 1 program, it does not seem > >logical to learn LISP. Are there Windows or DOS executables of the UD? > >FWIW. I use MAPLE and not Mathematica. > >

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 19 Jul 2011, at 21:16, meekerdb wrote: On 7/19/2011 11:32 AM, ronaldheld wrote: Given limited resources and for only 1 program, it does not seem logical to learn LISP. Are there Windows or DOS executables of the UD? FWIW. I use MAPLE and not Mathematica. Ronald Maple is

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 7/19/2011 11:32 AM, ronaldheld wrote: Given limited resources and for only 1 program, it does not seem logical to learn LISP. Are there Windows or DOS executables of the UD? FWIW. I use MAPLE and not Mathematica. Ronald Maple is based on LISP. An executable UD wouldn't b

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

Given limited resources and for only 1 program, it does not seem logical to learn LISP. Are there Windows or DOS executables of the UD? FWIW. I use MAPLE and not Mathematica. Ronald On Jul 19, 10:14 am, Bruno Marchal ote: > On 18 Jul 2011, at 21:26, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > > > On

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

Hi, I really want to apology for my spelling. I will not correct my post (I could add errors!), but I want to correct a statement I made: On 18 Jul 2011, at 20:44, Bruno Marchal wrote: Accepting what you can feel and see and test is the antithesis of taking it for granted and the epito

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 18 Jul 2011, at 21:26, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 18.07.2011 14:21 ronaldheld said the following: Bruno: I do not know LISP. Any UD code written in Fortran? Ronald Very good book to learn LISP is http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html A great classi

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 18.07.2011 14:21 ronaldheld said the following: Bruno: I do not know LISP. Any UD code written in Fortran? Ronald Very good book to learn LISP is http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html Just click Next page, read and so on. By the way, List is much n

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 18 Jul 2011, at 19:14, meekerdb wrote: On 7/18/2011 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Jul 2011, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote: On 7/17/2011 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Jul 2011, at 18:41, meekerdb wrote: On 7/15/2011 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Numerology is poetry. Can be ve

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 7/18/2011 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Jul 2011, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote: On 7/17/2011 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Jul 2011, at 18:41, meekerdb wrote: On 7/15/2011 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Numerology is poetry. Can be very cute, but should not be taken too much se

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

Bruno: I do not know LISP. Any UD code written in Fortran? Ronald On Jul 18, 5:26 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 17 Jul 2011, at 19:52, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal   > > wrote: > > > The interior of the > > singularit

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 17 Jul 2011, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote: On 7/17/2011 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Jul 2011, at 18:41, meekerdb wrote: On 7/15/2011 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Numerology is poetry. Can be very cute, but should not be taken too much seriously. Are you saying that you disagree w

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 17 Jul 2011, at 19:52, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The interior of the singularity is the interior of the cosmos with all of the spacetime vacuumed out of it. Spacetime is what exteriorizes the big bang (meaning it's more of a Big Break,

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

>I don't know what you mean by singularity, runtime, etc. In the UDA I >use some consensual reality to support an argument, but in fine I >isolated an axiomatic theory. By singularity I mean the sum total of all phenomena minus timespace. The idea of a monad from which all temporal phenomena emerg

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 7/17/2011 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Jul 2011, at 18:41, meekerdb wrote: On 7/15/2011 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Numerology is poetry. Can be very cute, but should not be taken too much seriously. Are you saying that you disagree with the fact that math is about immaterial re

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > The interior of the >> singularity is the interior of the cosmos with all of the spacetime >> vacuumed out of it. Spacetime is what exteriorizes the big bang >> (meaning it's more of a Big Break, where the void of space rushes >> inwar

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 15 Jul 2011, at 18:41, meekerdb wrote: On 7/15/2011 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Numerology is poetry. Can be very cute, but should not be taken too much seriously. Are you saying that you disagree with the fact that math is about immaterial relation between non material beings. Could

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 15 Jul 2011, at 14:08, Craig Weinberg wrote: Interesting stuff. I had a marathon info download with Stephen and he's helping me access your theory more. Still scratching the surface but at least getting a better idea of how to approach it. What you call UDA I think of as 'Runtime' in compar

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

nice On Jul 15, 12:41 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 7/15/2011 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Numerology is poetry. Can be very cute, but should not be taken too > > much seriously. Are you saying that you disagree with the fact that > > math is about immaterial relation between non material being

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 7/15/2011 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Numerology is poetry. Can be very cute, but should not be taken too much seriously. Are you saying that you disagree with the fact that math is about immaterial relation between non material beings. Could you give me an explanation that 34 is less than

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

Interesting stuff. I had a marathon info download with Stephen and he's helping me access your theory more. Still scratching the surface but at least getting a better idea of how to approach it. What you call UDA I think of as 'Runtime' in comparison to the hardware which I think of as the Singula

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 15 Jul 2011, at 00:42, Craig Weinberg wrote: The experience of seeing yellow might be, although its stability will needs the global structure of all computations. If you believe the contrary, you need to speculate on an unknown physics. I don't consider it an unknown physics, just a physic

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

But a person also makes changes to their chemical network by exercising their will out of purely semantic conscious intent, having no biochemical rationale or specific neurogeographical constraint. You don't have to get from one part of your brain to another part to think about something else, 'you

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

What is a "person"? What can a "person" be but the continuos response of a wet chemical neural network to exogenous and endogenous inputs. The response will be modified by changes in the networks chemical environment, and now we learn by strong external pulsed magnetic fields. In a series of

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

>The experience of seeing yellow might be, although its stability will >needs the global structure of all computations. >If you believe the contrary, you need to speculate on an unknown >physics. I don't consider it an unknown physics, just a physics that doesn't disqualify 1p phenomena. I don't g

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 13 Jul 2011, at 01:49, Craig Weinberg wrote: Not sure what you mean in either sentence. A plastic flower behaves differently than a biological plant. Sure. But they have not the same function. They both decorate a vase. How do we know when we build a chip that it's performing the same f

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

Evgenii, Why don't you make a course for dummies about this? (For example in Second Life) Because in the second life, the students already know that they are in a virtual reality :) It looks more difficult to explain this with first life inquirers. But is it, really? Got the feeling

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

Oh, yeah I would agree with you if you are talking real world live healthy human bodies then they are going to have a human experience. In a hypothetical, you could not know whether a person was a zombie or not for sure, just because subjectivity is airtight, but mechanically there is no way to tak

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 6:10 PM, meekerdb wrote: > ** > On 7/12/2011 2:30 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > >> >> Not sure what the cogito has to do with the presumption of the >> necessity of color. Omnipotence solves all problems by definiti

RE: Bruno's blasphemy.

> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 15:50:12 -0700 > Subject: Re: Bruno's blasphemy. > From: whatsons...@gmail.com > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > > Thanks, I always seem to like Chalmers perspectives. In this case I > think that the hypothesis of physics I'm w

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

I think the point of philosophical zombies for Chalmers is not to invoke dualism or epiphenominalism but to point out that we cannot tell from the outside what is going on on the inside. I agree with that, but it's not because human consciousness is a separate thing from human neurology, but rather

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

>> Not sure what you mean in either sentence. A plastic flower behaves >> differently than a biological plant. >Sure. But they have not the same function. They both decorate a vase. How do we know when we build a chip that it's performing the same function that a neuron performs and not just what

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 7/12/2011 2:30 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Craig Weinberg > wrote: Not sure what the cogito has to do with the presumption of the necessity of color. Omnipotence solves all problems by definition, doesn't it? I'm just u

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

Thanks, I always seem to like Chalmers perspectives. In this case I think that the hypothesis of physics I'm working from changes how I see this argument compared to how I would have a couple years ago. My thought now is that although organizational invariance is valid, molecular structure is part

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > Not sure what the cogito has to do with the presumption of the > necessity of color. Omnipotence solves all problems by definition, > doesn't it? I'm just using it as an example to show that it's > ridiculous to think that the idea of colo

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 11 Jul 2011, at 23:57, Craig Weinberg wrote: I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. Computer chips don't behave in the same way though. That is just a question of choice of level of description. Unless you believe in substantial infinite souls. Not sure what you mean in

RE: Bruno's blasphemy.

Craig, I wonder what you'd think of Chalmers' "Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia, Dancing Qualia" argument at http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html which to me makes a strong argument for "organizational invariance", which says physical systems organized the same way should produce the same qualia, so

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

Part II > What is your source of that information? About human tetrachromats? http://www.klab.caltech.edu/cns186/papers/Jameson01.pdf Everything else is just my hypothesis. >To "suspect that "..." is >to bet that "..." is true. How different is that from what Bruno is >talking about with the

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On 09 Jul 2011, at 04:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: You assumptions are not enough clear so I never know if you talk of what is or of what seems to be. I'm trying for 'what seems to be what is', OK. But what is your assumption? since what is isn't knowable In which theory. I think that a

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

Hi Stephen, I have to do a Part I now and get into Part II later on. > How does this "causality flows in both directions " work? I have a >model of something that has that kind of feature, but I am curious about >yours. Subjectively we feel, (and see, hear, remember, understand) that we can vo

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

Bruno, Why don't you make a course for dummies about this? (For example in Second Life) Evgenii On 11.07.2011 16:01 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 11 Jul 2011, at 14:33, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 10.07.2011 17:32 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 10 Jul 2011, at 15:20, Craig We

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

Hi Craig! Forgive me but could you elaborate on On 7/11/2011 10:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Jul 11, 8:08 pm, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Craig Weinbergwrote: Not just their quantity, but the relationships of their connections to each other. Ok, but you are

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

>So you say. But it's just an unsupported assertion on your part. If >the ping-pong intelligence could do those things without experiencing >yellow then maybe you could too. I would I know? Not sure what you mean. Are you saying I should question my own experience of seeing yellow in order to g

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

On Jul 11, 8:08 pm, Jason Resch wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Not just their quantity, but the relationships of their connections to each > other. Ok, but you are still privileging the exterior appearances of neurons over the interior. You are saying that exp

  1   2   >