Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

> On 16 Apr 2015, at 11:03 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > But those who gave me the price in Paris The PRIZE K -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an emai

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 17 Apr 2015, at 09:15, Bruce Kellett wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett > wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 4/15/2015 11:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: Physicalism reduces to computationalism if

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 18 Apr 2015, at 06:53, meekerdb wrote: On 4/17/2015 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Comp explains why this is impossible. The finest details of physics are given by sum on many computations, the finer the details, the more there are. To get the numbers right up to infinite decimals, y

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 18 Apr 2015, at 06:07, meekerdb wrote: On 4/17/2015 5:35 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: If you had an actual Turing machine and unlimited time, you could by brute force emulate everything. However, that is not the point. If you car needs a part replaced, you don't need to get a replacement e

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 18 Apr 2015, at 04:45, meekerdb wrote: On 4/17/2015 12:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:54, meekerdb wrote: On 4/16/2015 1:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So consciousness is not 1-duplicable, but can be considered as having been duplicated in some 3-1-view, even before it

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/17/2015 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Comp explains why this is impossible. The finest details of physics are given by sum on many computations, the finer the details, the more there are. To get the numbers right up to infinite decimals, you need to run the entire dovetailer in a finite

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/17/2015 5:35 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: If you had an actual Turing machine and unlimited time, you could by brute force emulate everything. However, that is not the point. If you car needs a part replaced, you don't need to get a replacement exactly the same down to the quantum level. This i

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Saturday, April 18, 2015, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/17/2015 12:35 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > But physics itself is not Turing emulable. The no-cloning theorem of >> quantum physics precludes it. >> > > Do you mean because you can't exactly copy a given physical state? That > doesn't nec

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/17/2015 12:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:54, meekerdb wrote: On 4/16/2015 1:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So consciousness is not 1-duplicable, but can be considered as having been duplicated in some 3-1-view, even before it diverges. How can it be considered duplicat

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/17/2015 12:35 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: But physics itself is not Turing emulable. The no-cloning theorem of quantum physics precludes it. Do you mean because you can't exactly copy a given physical state? That doesn't necessarily mean the physical world as a whole cannot b

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 17 Apr 2015, at 14:35, Bruce Kellett wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote:

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 17 Apr 2015, at 18:55, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au >> wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce K

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 meekerdb wrote: >> Even if the laws of physics are deterministic and time-symmetric >> events would still not be time symmetrical if the initial condition was a >> state of minimum entropy because then any change in that state would lead >> to a increase in entropy, and th

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> >> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett >> mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 17 Apr 2015, at 08:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 4/15/2015 11:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 16 April 2015 at 15:37, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: Bruno has said to me that one cannot refute a scientific finding by philosoph

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> Physicalism reduces to computationalism if the physics in the >> brain is

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 17 Apr 2015, at 07:12, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2015, at 06:34, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:33 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: LizR wrote: On 16 April 2015 at 12:53, Bruce Kellett

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Physicalism reduces to computationalism if the physics in the brain is Turing emulable, and then if you follow Bruno's reasoning i

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 Apr 2015, at 23:23, meekerdb wrote: On 4/16/2015 6:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2015, at 13:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2015, at 01:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: Yes. I think that Bruno's treatment sometimes lacks philosophical sophistication. Comp

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:54, meekerdb wrote: On 4/16/2015 1:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So consciousness is not 1-duplicable, but can be considered as having been duplicated in some 3-1-view, even before it diverges. How can it be considered duplicated before it diverges? By associating it w

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> >> >> On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> >> meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 4/15/2015 11:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> LizR wrote: >> >>

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:18, meekerdb wrote: On 4/16/2015 1:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2015, at 05:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 16 April 2015 at 12:53, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: LizR wrote: On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark m

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett > wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 4/15/2015 11:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 16 April 2015 at 15:37, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhk

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 Apr 2015, at 21:18, meekerdb wrote: On 4/16/2015 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2015, at 02:52, meekerdb wrote: On 4/15/2015 5:29 PM, LizR wrote: On 15 April 2015 at 04:40, meekerdb wrote: On 4/13/2015 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 14 avr. 2015 08:04, "Stathis Papai

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 Apr 2015, at 20:24, meekerdb wrote: On 4/15/2015 11:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 16 April 2015 at 15:37, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: Bruno has said to me that one cannot refute a scientific finding by philosophy. One cannot, of cour

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 Apr 2015, at 19:19, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> the argument is that both copies are equally the same person as the original. >> No one assume that. > John Clark assumes this, Of course I assume it, it's the only logical conclusion and I assume

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Friday, April 17, 2015, Bruce Kellett wrote: > meekerdb wrote: > >> On 4/15/2015 11:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >>> LizR wrote: >>> On 16 April 2015 at 15:37, Bruce Kellett >>> > wrote: Bruno has said to me that one cannot refute a scient

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

meekerdb wrote: On 4/15/2015 11:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 16 April 2015 at 15:37, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Bruno has said to me that one cannot refute a scientific finding by philosophy. One cannot, of course, refute a scientific observa

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 16 Apr 2015, at 06:34, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:33 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > >> LizR wrote: >> >>> On 16 April 2015 at 12:53, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote: >>> >>

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 17 April 2015 at 04:54, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 meekerdb wrote: > > >> > If the laws of physics are deterministic and time-symmetric >> > > Even if the laws of physics are deterministic and time-symmetric events > would still not be time symmetrical if the initial condition

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/16/2015 9:54 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: > If the laws of physics are deterministic and time-symmetric Even if the laws of physics are deterministic and time-symmetric events would still not be time symmetrical if the ini

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/16/2015 6:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2015, at 13:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2015, at 01:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: Yes. I think that Bruno's treatment sometimes lacks philosophical sophistication. Computationalism is based on the idea that human c

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/16/2015 1:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: So consciousness is not 1-duplicable, but can be considered as having been duplicated in some 3-1-view, even before it diverges. How can it be considered duplicated before it diverges? By associating it with different token of the machinery implement

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/16/2015 1:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2015, at 05:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 16 April 2015 at 12:53, Bruce Kellett > wrote: LizR wrote: On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/16/2015 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2015, at 02:52, meekerdb wrote: On 4/15/2015 5:29 PM, LizR wrote: On 15 April 2015 at 04:40, meekerdb > wrote: On 4/13/2015 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 14 avr. 2015 08:04, "Stathis Papaioanno

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/16/2015 1:03 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:53 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: LizR wrote: On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/15/2015 11:16 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 16 April 2015 at 15:37, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Bruno has said to me that one cannot refute a scientific finding by philosophy. One cannot, of course, refute a scientific observation by philo

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> the argument is that both copies are equally the same person as the > original. > >> No one assume that. > > John Clark assumes this, Of course I assume it, it's the only logical conclusion and I assume that logic is more likely to find the trut

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 meekerdb wrote: > > If the laws of physics are deterministic and time-symmetric > Even if the laws of physics are deterministic and time-symmetric events would still not be time symmetrical if the initial condition was a state of minimum entropy because then any change in

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 Apr 2015, at 13:55, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2015, at 01:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: Yes. I think that Bruno's treatment sometimes lacks philosophical sophistication. Computationalism is based on the idea that human consciousness is Turing emulable, This is

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 Apr 2015, at 11:55, LizR wrote: On 15 April 2015 at 19:58, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Bruno, I can go back as far as 2008 for such discussions with John Clark in my gmail archives about step 3... it's useless to continue to answer him (at least on your work, and surely on anything else)

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 Apr 2015, at 10:03, Bruce Kellett wrote: Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:53 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: LizR wrote: On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 Apr 2015, at 06:34, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:33 AM, Bruce Kellett > wrote: LizR wrote: On 16 April 2015 at 12:53, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au >> wrote: LizR wrote: On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark mailto:johnkcl...

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Apr 2015, at 01:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: Yes. I think that Bruno's treatment sometimes lacks philosophical sophistication. Computationalism is based on the idea that human consciousness is Turing emulable, This is an acceptable terming for some argument, but at so

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Thursday, April 16, 2015, LizR wrote: > On 15 April 2015 at 19:58, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: > >> >> Bruno, I can go back as far as 2008 for such discussions with John Clark >> in my gmail archives about step 3... it's useless to continue to answer him >> (at least on your work, and surely on

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 15 April 2015 at 19:58, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Bruno, I can go back as far as 2008 for such discussions with John Clark > in my gmail archives about step 3... it's useless to continue to answer him > (at least on your work, and surely on anything else), he will never accept > anything, and

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:53 AM, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> >> LizR wrote: >> >> On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark >

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 Apr 2015, at 02:52, meekerdb wrote: On 4/15/2015 5:29 PM, LizR wrote: On 15 April 2015 at 04:40, meekerdb wrote: On 4/13/2015 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 14 avr. 2015 08:04, "Stathis Papaioannou" a écrit : > Certainly some theories of consciousness might not allow copyi

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 Apr 2015, at 08:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 16 April 2015 at 15:37, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Bruno has said to me that one cannot refute a scientific finding by philosophy. One cannot, of course, refute a scientific observation by ph

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 Apr 2015, at 05:33, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 16 April 2015 at 12:53, Bruce Kellett > wrote: LizR wrote: On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 15 Apr 2015, at 09:58, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-04-15 9:35 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal : On 15 Apr 2015, at 00:15, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote: > I predict that I will win 1 million dollar by tomorrow. I know my prediction is correct because this will

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 Apr 2015, at 04:43, LizR wrote: On 16 April 2015 at 12:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com >> wrote: Yes but I'm confused, I though you were the one arguing that Bruno had discovered something new under the s

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 Apr 2015, at 02:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com >> wrote: Yes but I'm confused, I though you were the one arguing that Bruno had discovered something new under the sun, a new sort of uncertainty That's hardl

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 Apr 2015, at 02:50, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 4/15/2015 4:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: That then leads to the questions of personal identity. As a person, my consciousness changes from moment to moment with changing thoughts and external stimuli, but I remain the same

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 15 Apr 2015, at 21:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-04-15 20:51 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : On 4/14/2015 11:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-04-15 4:53 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : On 4/14/2015 12:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: No, a miracle cannot be logically contradictory. God cannot make a marrie

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 Apr 2015, at 01:51, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 4/15/2015 12:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But the question of the number of person is a different discussion. If you agree that the W-guy, who stays in W and marries a girl in W, is the same person as the guy in M, who ma

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 15 Apr 2015, at 21:00, meekerdb wrote: On 4/15/2015 12:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Apr 2015, at 01:58, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Apr 2015, at 03:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: It's stubborn, even if an illusion, eh? If you were duplicated, would you be prepared

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 15 Apr 2015, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote: On 4/15/2015 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Apr 2015, at 05:12, meekerdb wrote: On 4/14/2015 9:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-04-14 18:40 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : On 4/13/2015 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 14 avr. 2015 08:04, "Stath

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 April 2015 at 18:16, Bruce Kellett wrote: > LizR wrote: > >> On 16 April 2015 at 15:37, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> >> Bruno has said to me that one cannot refute a scientific finding by >> philosophy. One cannot, of course, refute a scientific obse

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:53 AM, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au>> wrote: LizR wrote: On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com> >> wrote: Yes

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 2:53 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > LizR wrote: > >> On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark > johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Yes but I'm confused, I though you were the one arguing that Bruno >> had discovered something new under the sun, a new sort of >> uncertain

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

> > My problem with any view based on entropy is that entropy doesn't appear to be fundamental to physics; it is the statistically likely result when objects are put in a certain configuration and allowed to evolve randomly. >>> >> There is, however, an interesting parallel to be mad

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

LizR wrote: On 16 April 2015 at 15:37, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Bruno has said to me that one cannot refute a scientific finding by philosophy. One cannot, of course, refute a scientific observation by philosophy, but one can certainly enter a philosop

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

Le 16 avr. 2015 01:04, "meekerdb" a écrit : > > On 4/15/2015 3:37 PM, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> .. >> Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it? >> >>> >>> > I can image a being who transcend anything >> >> >> Wow, you can imagine that! I can't d

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 April 2015 at 15:37, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Bruno has said to me that one cannot refute a scientific finding by > philosophy. One cannot, of course, refute a scientific observation by > philosophy, but one can certainly enter a philosophical discussion of the > meaning and interpretation of

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:33 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > LizR wrote: > >> On 16 April 2015 at 12:53, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> >> LizR wrote: >> >> On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark >

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

LizR wrote: On 16 April 2015 at 14:44, Bruce Kellett > wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 16 April 2015 at 09:51, Bruce Kellett mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > Yes. I think that Bruno's treatment sometimes la

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

LizR wrote: On 16 April 2015 at 12:53, Bruce Kellett > wrote: LizR wrote: On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com> >> wrote: Yes but I'm confuse

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 Bruce Kellett wrote: > >> Right. Like AI's in separate but identical worlds. >> > > > Don't you then run into the problem of the identity of indiscernibles? Yes exactly, that idea of Leibniz has proved to be amazingly useful. If you exchanged the position of the 2 AI's not

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 April 2015 at 14:44, Bruce Kellett wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> On 16 April 2015 at 09:51, Bruce Kellett > wrote: >> > >> > Yes. I think that Bruno's treatment sometimes lacks philosophical >> > sophistication. >> >> A rigorous philosophical analysis usually starts with a def

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 April 2015 at 12:59, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/15/2015 5:33 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 15 April 2015 at 05:40, John Clark wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Telmo Menezes >> wrote: >> >> >> My problem with any view based on entropy is that entropy doesn't appear to be fun

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 16 April 2015 at 09:51, Bruce Kellett > Yes. I think that Bruno's treatment sometimes lacks philosophical > sophistication. A rigorous philosophical analysis usually starts with a definition, I disagree. Philosophical discussion will often start from a loosely

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 April 2015 at 12:53, Bruce Kellett wrote: > LizR wrote: > >> On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark > johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Yes but I'm confused, I though you were the one arguing that Bruno >> had discovered something new under the sun, a new sort of >> uncertainty >>

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 April 2015 at 12:52, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/15/2015 5:29 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 15 April 2015 at 04:40, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 4/13/2015 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> Le 14 avr. 2015 08:04, "Stathis Papaioannou" a >> écrit : >> >> > Certainly some theories of consciousnes

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 16 April 2015 at 09:51, Bruce Kellett > wrote: > meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 4/15/2015 12:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> But the question of the number of person is a different discussion. If >>> you agree that the W-guy, who stays in W and marries a girl in W, is the >>> same person as th

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

meekerdb wrote: On 4/15/2015 5:50 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 4/15/2015 4:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: That then leads to the questions of personal identity. As a person, my consciousness changes from moment to moment with changing thoughts and external stimuli, but I remain

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/15/2015 5:50 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 4/15/2015 4:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: That then leads to the questions of personal identity. As a person, my consciousness changes from moment to moment with changing thoughts and external stimuli, but I remain the same person.

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/15/2015 5:33 PM, LizR wrote: On 15 April 2015 at 05:40, John Clark > wrote: On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Telmo Menezes mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com>> wrote: >> My problem with any view based on entropy is that entropy doesn't appear to be

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

LizR wrote: On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark > wrote: Yes but I'm confused, I though you were the one arguing that Bruno had discovered something new under the sun, a new sort of uncertainty That's hardly what Bruno is claiming. Step 3 is only a small

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/15/2015 5:29 PM, LizR wrote: On 15 April 2015 at 04:40, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 4/13/2015 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 14 avr. 2015 08:04, "Stathis Papaioannou" mailto:stath...@gmail.com>> a écrit : > Certainly some theories of consciousness

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

meekerdb wrote: On 4/15/2015 4:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: That then leads to the questions of personal identity. As a person, my consciousness changes from moment to moment with changing thoughts and external stimuli, but I remain the same person. Can two spatially distinct consciousnesses

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 15 April 2015 at 10:15, John Clark wrote: > > Yes but I'm confused, I though you were the one arguing that Bruno had > discovered something new under the sun, a new sort of uncertainty > > That's hardly what Bruno is claiming. Step 3 is only a small step in a logical argument. It shows that if

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 15 April 2015 at 05:40, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > > >> My problem with any view based on entropy is that entropy doesn't >>> appear to be fundamental to physics; it is the statistically likely result >>> when objects are put in a certain co

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 15 April 2015 at 04:40, meekerdb wrote: > On 4/13/2015 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > Le 14 avr. 2015 08:04, "Stathis Papaioannou" a > écrit : > > > Certainly some theories of consciousness might not allow copying, but > > that cannot be a logical requirement. To claim that something

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 15 April 2015 at 04:39, Telmo Menezes wrote: > Hi Liz, > > >> Ok. I have an idea about that, it is probably not original. Tell me what >>> you think: >>> The universe was not created. All possible states just exist. The moment >>> of the big bang is one of the many possible states. What we cal

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 15 April 2015 at 04:36, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > If I commit suicide the illusion of persisting through time is >> destroyed. >> > > Whenever somebody says X is an illusion the first question that should be > asked is how would things be diffe

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/15/2015 4:51 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 4/15/2015 12:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But the question of the number of person is a different discussion. If you agree that the W-guy, who stays in W and marries a girl in W, is the same person as the guy in M, who marries a wo

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

meekerdb wrote: On 4/15/2015 12:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But the question of the number of person is a different discussion. If you agree that the W-guy, who stays in W and marries a girl in W, is the same person as the guy in M, who marries a woman in M, are the same person ... as the H-

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/15/2015 3:37 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote: .. Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it? > I can image a being who transcend anything Wow, you can imagine that! I can't do it but you can use your imagination to vis

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > that's false that theologians (at least some) never say that god can't > do self-contradictory thing. > I think you're right, theologians do say such things. Have you even wondered why Thomas Jefferson insisted that the new university he founded

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/15/2015 9:02 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: >> there a difference between the past and the future and if Many Worlds is correct then unlike the past there is nothing linear and nothing unique about Mr.You

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-04-15 20:55 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > On 4/14/2015 11:33 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2015-04-15 5:12 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > >> On 4/14/2015 9:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >> 2015-04-14 18:40 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : >> >>> On 4/13/2015 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> >>> >>>

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-04-15 20:51 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > On 4/14/2015 11:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2015-04-15 4:53 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > >> On 4/14/2015 12:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> No, a miracle cannot be logically contradictory. God cannot make a >>> married bachelor. >>> >> >> Yes it c

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/15/2015 12:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Apr 2015, at 08:33, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-04-15 5:12 GMT+02:00 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>: On 4/14/2015 9:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-04-14 18:40 GMT+02:00 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>:

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/15/2015 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Apr 2015, at 05:12, meekerdb wrote: On 4/14/2015 9:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-04-14 18:40 GMT+02:00 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>: On 4/13/2015 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 14 avr. 2015 08:04, "Stathis Pap

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/14/2015 11:33 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-04-15 5:12 GMT+02:00 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>: On 4/14/2015 9:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-04-14 18:40 GMT+02:00 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>: On 4/13/2015 11:31 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/15/2015 12:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Apr 2015, at 01:58, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Apr 2015, at 03:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: It's stubborn, even if an illusion, eh? If you were duplicated, would you be prepared to kill your duplicate? Who would you kill? I

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 4/14/2015 11:29 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-04-15 4:53 GMT+02:00 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>: On 4/14/2015 12:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: No, a miracle cannot be logically contradictory. God cannot make a married bachelor. Yes it can.. that's the

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 meekerdb wrote: >> there a difference between the past and the future and if Many Worlds >> is correct then unlike the past there is nothing linear and nothing unique >> about Mr.You's future. > > > > Except the disciples of MWI insist that the SWE (without collapse) > in

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >