Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Jason Resch 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 does not so

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:15 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Jason Resch 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 >> everything will be fine. Or, if

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On 25 Oct 2012, at 03:27, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:04 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote > I think you are missing something. It is a problem that I noticed after watching the movie "The Prestige" In my opinion "The Prest

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On 25 Oct 2012, at 02:56, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Oct 2012, at 18:42, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi John, On 20 Oct 2012, at 23:16, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, especially in my i

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:00 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/24/2012 8:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Oct 24, 2012, at 9:02 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > On 10/24/2012 6:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:04 AM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM, J

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On 10/24/2012 8:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Oct 24, 2012, at 9:02 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 10/24/2012 6:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:04 AM, John Clark > wrote: On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Jason R

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Oct 24, 2012, at 9:02 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/24/2012 6:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:04 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote > I think you are missing something. It is a problem that I noticed after watching the m

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On 10/24/2012 6:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:04 AM, John Clark > wrote: On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote > I think you are missing something. It is a problem that I noticed afte

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:04 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Jason Resch 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 ye

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 21 Oct 2012, at 18:42, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >> On 20 Oct 2012, at 23:16, John Mikes wrote: >> >> Bruno, >> especially in my identification as "responding to

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On 22 Oct 2012, at 18:26, meekerdb wrote: On 10/22/2012 12:51 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/10/22 Jason Resch On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:46 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> I stopped reading after your proof of the existence of a new type of

Re: Continuous Game of Life

long time, 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 id

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On 10/22/2012 12:51 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/10/22 Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:46 PM, John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: >> I stop

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On 21 Oct 2012, at 19:46, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal 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 t

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Jason Resch 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 where the movie was

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On 21 Oct 2012, at 18:42, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Bruno Marchal 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

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Craig Weinberg 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 the top down. I

Re: Continuous Game of Life

2012/10/22 Jason Resch > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:46 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal 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

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Stephen P. King 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 potentials, ion concent

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:46 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal 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

Re: Re: Continuous Game of Life

rom: 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 as "responding to relations". Now the "Self"? IT certainly refers to

Re: Continuous Game of Life

2012/10/21 John Clark > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal 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 >>> >> >>

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 Bruno Marchal 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 been

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Bruno Marchal 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 events that wer

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Bruno Marchal 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 average (

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On 10/21/2012 4:05 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Craig Weinberg 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

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Sunday, October 21, 2012 4:06:16 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Craig Weinberg > > > 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 > >> beha

Re: Continuous Game of Life

y 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 d

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On 20 Oct 2012, at 19:29, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 Bruno Marchal 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

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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:

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On 21.10.2012 10:05 Stathis Papaioannou said the following: On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Craig Weinberg 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 of billions of atoms t

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Craig Weinberg 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 of >> these ato

Re: Continuous Game of Life

- 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 w

Re: Continuous Game of Life

on.net >> 10/17/2012 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >> >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: Bruno Marchal >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2012-10-17, 10:13:37 >> Subject: R

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Saturday, October 20, 2012 1:47:28 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Oct 15, 2012, at 4:10 AM, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > > >> But since you misunderstand the first assumption you misunderstand the >> >> whole argument. >> > >> > >> > Nope. You misunderstand my argument completely.

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Oct 15, 2012, at 4:10 AM, Craig Weinberg 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 >

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 Bruno Marchal 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 seen before

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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 > > > 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 works. >>> >> >>

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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 togethe

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On 20 Oct 2012, at 07:15, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Bruno Marchal 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 arithm

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Bruno Marchal 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 means, not a clu

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Craig Weinberg 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 works. >> > > > Because talking about how you want to kill me in an argument about > computers is poin

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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.

Re: Continuous Game of Life

ly near the end." -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 cons

Re: Re: Continuous Game of Life

no 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 i

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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 it

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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 rec

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 that you have no answer to this means your ideas are fatally flawed. >

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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 wor

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On 10/16/2012 9:37 AM, 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 that you have no answer to this means your

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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 > > > 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 proof but are >

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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 that you have no answer to > this means your ideas are fatally flawed. > > > > I don't see this as a *fatal* flaw. Evolu

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Craig Weinberg 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 proof but are >> keeping it secret for some strange reason, but my knowledge is more than >> diddly squat

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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 volt

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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 un

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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 plugge

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On 10/15/2012 9:38 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Craig Weinberg > wrote: > 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 coh

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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 > > > wrote: > >> >> >>> You don't know diddly squat about "our consciousness", you only know >>> about your consciousness; assuming of course that you are conscious, if not

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >> 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 diddly

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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 > > > wrote: > > >> > 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 h

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Monday, October 15, 2012 12:14:55 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Craig Weinberg >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 con

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > 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 then Evolution can't

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Craig Weinberg 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 sensitive to part

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Sunday, October 14, 2012 1:04:54 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Craig Weinberg > > > 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 beha

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Craig Weinberg 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 structure of the tho

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:05:58 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Craig Weinberg > > > 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

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Craig Weinberg 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 is an assembly > of

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:05:26 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > > Since we know that our consciousness is exquisitely sensitive to > particular > > masses of specific chemicals, yet relatively tolerant of other kinds of >

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Saturday, October 13, 2012 7:54:44 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Russell Standish > > 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.

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Craig Weinberg 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 COMP is a > fantasy.

Re: Continuous Game of Life

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Russell Standish 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 substrate-independence of c

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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,

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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, > > th

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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 >

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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 al

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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 experi

Re: Re: Continuous Game of Life

- Receiving 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

Re: Re: Continuous Game of Life

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

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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 oscillati

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 have experiences already? Would it give them more of a human experience if an oscillating smiley-face/frowny-face algorithm were added graph

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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.

Re: Continuous Game of Life

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