Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2007-01-09 Thread dan9el
Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes: This cannot be explained away by faith in the sense that one can have faith in the gravity god or a deist god (because no empirical finding counts for or against such beliefs): rather,

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2007-01-09 Thread Brent Meeker
dan9el wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes: This cannot be explained away by faith in the sense that one can have faith in the gravity god or a deist god (because no empirical finding counts for or against such beliefs): rather,

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 11-nov.-06, à 19:07, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 11-nov.-06, à 01:09, 1Z a écrit : No, because there are no possible worlds where (2^32582657)-1 is not a prime number. This is for me a typical arithmetical realist statement. Most philosophers who use the possible worlds

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-11 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Tom Caylor writes: Brent Meeker wrote: OK. But I'd say that in fact almost no one believes something without any evidence, i.e. on *blind* faith. Religious faith is usually belief based on *selected* evidence; it is faith because it is contrary to the total evidence. Bruno seems

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 11-nov.-06, à 01:09, 1Z a écrit : No, because there are no possible worlds where (2^32582657)-1 is not a prime number. This is for me a typical arithmetical realist statement. Causality , as opposed to material implication, requires contingency. Yes. And grosso modo there will be as

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-11 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 11-nov.-06, à 01:09, 1Z a écrit : No, because there are no possible worlds where (2^32582657)-1 is not a prime number. This is for me a typical arithmetical realist statement. Most philosophers who use the possible worlds terminology do nothing PW's actually

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-10 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Brent Meeker writes: This cannot be explained away by faith in the sense that one can have faith in the gravity god or a deist god (because no empirical finding counts for or against such beliefs): rather, it comes down to a matter of simultaneously believing x and not-x. Seems like

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-10 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Johnathan Corgan writes: That's because for hundreds, if not thousands, of years their theologians have had to explain why their God is invisible, unnoticable, incompehensible, and undetectable. So a null experimental outcome, like the recent studies of the efficacy of healing

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-10 Thread Johnathan Corgan
On Sat, 2006-11-11 at 00:30 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm Great article! I initially thought that it was written by some poor, honest Christian genuinely struggling with the logical consequences of his beliefs. But then such a person

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-10 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that. If you don't understand anti-Platonism, that would certainly

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-10 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes: This cannot be explained away by faith in the sense that one can have faith in the gravity god or a deist god (because no empirical finding counts for or against such beliefs): rather, it comes down to a matter of

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-10 Thread Brent Meeker
Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that. If you don't understand anti-Platonism, that

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-10 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that. If you don't

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-10 Thread 1Z
Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that. If you don't

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-10 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Peter Jones writes: Most people would not say yes doctor to a process that recorded their brain on a tape a left it in a filing cabinet. Yet, that is all you can get out of the timeless world of Plato's heaven (programme vs process). Why? Plato's heaven is full of

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-10 Thread Tom Caylor
1Z wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that.

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-10 Thread 1Z
Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL I have not the slightest idea what you

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
Peter Jones (1Z) a écrit : Most people would not say yes doctor to a process that recorded their brain on a tape a left it in a filing cabinet. Yet, that is all you can get out of the timeless world of Plato's heaven (programme vs process). Why? Plato's heaven is full of mathematical

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that. Your longer metaphysics post begs many of the questions addressed in this list. Personally: I have no theory, just an argument showing that if we take the

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-09 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: Peter Jones (1Z) a écrit : Most people would not say yes doctor to a process that recorded their brain on a tape a left it in a filing cabinet. Yet, that is all you can get out of the timeless world of Plato's heaven (programme vs process). Why? Plato's

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-09 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that. If you don't understand anti-Platonism, that would certainly explain why you don't argue against it. Your longer metaphysics post

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 09-nov.-06, à 13:53, 1Z a écrit : If you can show that subjective experience exists in Platonia, you can use that to show that some things will seem dynamical. If you can show that there a dynamic processes in Platonia, you can use that to show there are running computations and

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 09-nov.-06, à 14:07, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:37, 1Z a écrit : Well, I think numbers don't exist AT ALL I have not the slightest idea what you mean by that. If you don't understand anti-Platonism, that would certainly explain why you don't argue

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-09 Thread Stephen Paul King
: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:11 PM Subject: RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted Brent Meeker writes: snip A theist God (as opposed to a deist God) is one who intervenes in the natural order, i.e. does miracles

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-08 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Brent Meeker writes: It's also possible that God intervenes all the time in a perfectly consistent manner to sustain natural laws, such that if he stopped doing so the whole universe would instantly disintegrate. That's possible, but then he's a deist God. He doesn't do miracles

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 07-nov.-06, à 20:10, Tom Caylor a écrit : Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Bruno has tried to introduce us before to the concept of universes or worlds made from logic, bottom up (a la constructing elephants). These universes can be

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-08 Thread Johnathan Corgan
On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 09:39 -0800, Brent Meeker wrote: Good old-fashioned miracles are not lawlike, which is what makes them subject to empirical verification. If God is a Protestant, then an examination of a list of lottery ticket winners or people with serious illnesses should show

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-08 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes: It's also possible that God intervenes all the time in a perfectly consistent manner to sustain natural laws, such that if he stopped doing so the whole universe would instantly disintegrate. That's possible, but then he's a deist God. He

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-07 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Bruno has tried to introduce us before to the concept of universes or worlds made from logic, bottom up (a la constructing elephants). These universes can be consistent or inconsistent. But approaching it

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-07 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: An excellent essay. I agree with almost everything you wrote; and you put it very well. Would you mind if I cross posted it to Vic Stenger's AVOID-L mailing list. You can check out the list here: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/ Although Victor Stenger

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-07 Thread Brent Meeker
Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: An excellent essay. I agree with almost everything you wrote; and you put it very well. Would you mind if I cross posted it to Vic Stenger's AVOID-L mailing list. You can check out the list here: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-07 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Brent Meeker writes: Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: An excellent essay. I agree with almost everything you wrote; and you put it very well. Would you mind if I cross posted it to Vic Stenger's AVOID-L mailing list. You can check out the list here:

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-07 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes: Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: An excellent essay. I agree with almost everything you wrote; and you put it very well. Would you mind if I cross posted it to Vic Stenger's AVOID-L mailing list. You can check out the list here:

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-02 Thread David Nyman
Bruno Marchal wrote: I don't understand really what you mean by AUDA is not RITSIAR. AUDA is just the lobian interview, or if you prefer the complete mathematical formalization of the UDA reasoning. In some sense you can interpret it as the eventual elimination of the yes doctor hypothesis

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-11-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 31-oct.-06, à 19:01, 1Z a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 30-oct.-06, à 14:15, Stathis Papaioannou wrote (in part): A computationalist would add that a computer analogue of a person would also have the same mental states, but this is more controversial. Is it really? With the

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-31 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
David Nyman writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I think I see what you mean, but it's as much a problem for the intact and normally functioning brain as it is for teleportation experiments, isn't it? Yes, that's my point! I'm trying to argue that the brain has actually come up with a

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-31 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 28-oct.-06, à 23:24, 1Z a écrit : Stathis: and no explicit ordering is necessary. The counting sequence one, two, three may involve millions of slices of brain activity or computer emulation activity spread throughout space and time, and it may take many of these slices to form a

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-31 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 29-oct.-06, à 12:11, 1Z a écrit : If numbers aren't real at all they cannot generate reality (ITSIAR). You beg the question. Numbers are not physically real does not entails that numbers don't exist at all, unless you define real by physical real. I didn't say numbers are not

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-31 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 29-oct.-06, à 12:11, 1Z a écrit : If numbers aren't real at all they cannot generate reality (ITSIAR). You beg the question. Numbers are not physically real does not entails that numbers don't exist at all, unless you define real by physical real.

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-31 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 29-oct.-06, à 17:43, David Nyman a écrit : Peter, when you said that the physical might be 'relations all the way down', and I asked you what would you find if you went 'all the way down', you replied 'primary matter'. IOW, you posit primary matter as a 'bare substrate' to which are

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-31 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 30-oct.-06, à 14:15, Stathis Papaioannou wrote (in part): A computationalist would add that a computer analogue of a person would also have the same mental states, but this is more controversial. Is it really? With the notable couragous exception of Penrose I don't know people who

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-31 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 30-oct.-06, à 00:40, David Nyman wrote (to Peter Jones (1Z)): Name your turtle. Can't we just get on with investigating what either theory explains or predicts, and stop arguing over words - isn't this why no agreement is ever reached on this? Peter, I think that David is right. We

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-31 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 30-oct.-06, à 14:15, Stathis Papaioannou wrote (in part): A computationalist would add that a computer analogue of a person would also have the same mental states, but this is more controversial. Is it really? With the notable couragous exception of Penrose I

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-31 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 29-oct.-06, à 17:43, David Nyman a écrit : Peter, when you said that the physical might be 'relations all the way down', and I asked you what would you find if you went 'all the way down', you replied 'primary matter'. IOW, you posit primary matter as a 'bare

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-31 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Bruno Marchal writes: Le 30-oct.-06, à 14:15, Stathis Papaioannou wrote (in part): A computationalist would add that a computer analogue of a person would also have the same mental states, but this is more controversial. Is it really? With the notable couragous exception of

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-31 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Peter Jones writes: Another staunch opponent is Edelmann. http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=178 'The notion that the brain is a kind of computer is an error of such magnitude, Mr. Edelman believes, that cognitive science is on the brink of a crisis. I claim, he writes, that the

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-30 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Brent Meeker writes: Suppose that being conscious is something a brain does. Then a Observer-second would be one second of that brain activity. When this OS was magically initiated it would already include potentials traveling down axons, etc, the residue of the previous OS and

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-30 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Peter Jones writes: I suppose you could say that there is no feeling of continuity from one microsecond to the next in a normally functioning brain either, because it takes many microseconds to make a thought. My point is that whatever it takes to make a thought and however vague

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-30 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Peter jones writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Peter Jones writes: Here is another thought experiment. You are watching an object moving against a stationary background at a velocity of 10 m/s. Suddenly, the object seems to instantly jump 10 metres in the

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-30 Thread Tom Caylor
Tom Caylor wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 27-oct.-06, à 13:04, Quentin Anciaux a écrit : Hi Stathis, Le Vendredi 27 Octobre 2006 12:16, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Here is another thought experiment. You are watching an object moving against a stationary background at a

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-30 Thread 1Z
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Peter Jones writes: Errmm.. if by recover we are able to replay them as conscious (re)experiences. The memory-trace need only contain time-stamps indicating the order and timing of the contents of the experience. The total structure of

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-30 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Peter Jones writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I think I see what you mean, but it's as much a problem for the intact and normally functioning brain as it is for teleportation experiments, isn't it? For that matter, it's as much a problem for a computer that gets teleported around

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-30 Thread 1Z
David Nyman wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I think I see what you mean, but it's as much a problem for the intact and normally functioning brain as it is for teleportation experiments, isn't it? Yes, that's my point! I'm trying to argue that the brain has actually come up with a

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-30 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Brent Meeker writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: David Nyman writes: I think we're in agreement, Stathis, but I'm trying to focus on a problem, and what I think is a non-trivial aspect of evolved brain functionality that would be required to overcome it. Of course, I agree with

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 27-oct.-06, à 13:04, Quentin Anciaux a écrit : Hi Stathis, Le Vendredi 27 Octobre 2006 12:16, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Here is another thought experiment. You are watching an object moving against a stationary background at a velocity of 10 m/s. Suddenly, the object seems to

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 27-oct.-06, à 15:58, 1Z a écrit : If numbers aren't real at all they cannot generate reality (ITSIAR). You beg the question. Numbers are not physically real does not entails that numbers don't exist at all, unless you define real by physical real. The question you should ask is: are

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 27-oct.-06, à 16:06, 1Z a écrit : Principally I mean in the physical universe, or in Plato's heaven. Bruno always sounds like a Platonist, but he keeps denying he is one. Quite the contrary. I vindicate that I am even a plotinist, or a neoplatonist if you prefer. I just don't share

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-29 Thread David Nyman
1Z wrote: Peter, when you said that the physical might be 'relations all the way down', and I asked you what would you find if you went 'all the way down', you replied 'primary matter'. IOW, you posit primary matter as a 'bare substrate' to which are attached whatever properties theory

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-29 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
David Nyman writes: I think we're in agreement, Stathis, but I'm trying to focus on a problem, and what I think is a non-trivial aspect of evolved brain functionality that would be required to overcome it. Of course, I agree with you that each aspect of the experience '.falls perfectly

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-28 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Brent Meeker writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent meeker writes: That is not clear to me. Perhaps it turns on the meaning of content in an OM. Generally if my OM's are taken to be on the order of a second or longer, I think the order could be reconstructed from the

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-28 Thread 1Z
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent meeker writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Peter Jones writes: I think it is simpler to go back to your own clones-in-the-next-room example rather than introducing the complication of neurophysiology (or indeed physics). You are

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-28 Thread David Nyman
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:14:03 -0700 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: My brain must at some subconscious level have the structure

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-28 Thread 1Z
David Nyman wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: The point is, whatever you are thinking during t1t2, you are thinking *something*, and you are thinking the same something in (a), (b) and (c). Whatever complex brain processes are occurring during t1t2 in (a) are also occurring in (b)

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-28 Thread David Nyman
1Z wrote: I think we're in agreement, Stathis, but I'm trying to focus on a problem, and what I think is a non-trivial aspect of evolved brain functionality that would be required to overcome it. Of course, I agree with you that each aspect of the experience '.falls perfectly into

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-28 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent meeker writes: That is not clear to me. Perhaps it turns on the meaning of content in an OM. Generally if my OM's are taken to be on the order of a second or longer, I think the order could be

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-28 Thread 1Z
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent meeker writes: That is not clear to me. Perhaps it turns on the meaning of content in an OM. Generally if my OM's are taken to be on the order of a second or longer, I think the order could

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Hi Stathis, Le Vendredi 27 Octobre 2006 12:16, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Here is another thought experiment. You are watching an object moving against a stationary background at a velocity of 10 m/s. Suddenly, the object seems to instantly jump 10 metres in the direction of motion, and

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Brent meeker writes: That is not clear to me. Perhaps it turns on the meaning of content in an OM. Generally if my OM's are taken to be on the order of a second or longer, I think the order could be reconstructed from the content. But I also think there would be exceptions. For example

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread David Nyman
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: My brain must at some subconscious level have the structure of the whole sentence spanning a 2 second interval t1-t2 or else the sentence could not be generated. It's still unclear to me from the above whether we're in agreement or not. I'm concerned that you may

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 26-oct.-06, à 17:52, 1Z a écrit : No, I am just asking. I have even come up with formulations like real in the sense that I am real which avoid begging any questions about what kind of reality I have. Ah OK. I guess that is the RITSIAR. I let you know that: 1) I agree matter exists

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 26-oct.-06, à 18:02, 1Z a écrit : Measure is a lot more difficult in MMW. It has to be deprived by apriori necessity. Do you have a solution? A good candidate for apriori necessity (and possibility) is provability (and conssitency) by a lobian machine.

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 26-oct.-06, à 21:11, 1Z a écrit : If your definition of truth is limited to logical inference given a certain set of axioms and inference rules, then what are we trying to do on the Everything List? That's *mathematical* truth. It is not. This is just provability. Since Godel we know

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 26-oct.-06, à 22:55, 1Z a écrit : In an MMW, measure cannot be chosen to match experience, empirically, it has to be deduced apriori. Yes. You are rioght. And this is what I have done. Please be patient I will give all the explanation. Or search in the archive those I have already

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Quentin Anciaux writes: Hi Stathis, Le Vendredi 27 Octobre 2006 12:16, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Here is another thought experiment. You are watching an object moving against a stationary background at a velocity of 10 m/s. Suddenly, the object seems to instantly jump 10 metres in

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
, October 26, 2006 8:23 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted Le 23-oct.-06, à 00:12, 1Z a écrit : Huh? Computationalism is no more able to account for qualia than physicalism. Computationalism (the standard one) through my work (don't hesitate

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 26-oct.-06, à 17:52, 1Z a écrit : No, I am just asking. I have even come up with formulations like real in the sense that I am real which avoid begging any questions about what kind of reality I have. Ah OK. I guess that is the RITSIAR. I let you know that:

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: Sorry for the comment delay. Le 23-oct.-06, à 16:49, David Nyman a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: As usual, the truth of a mathematical existence-claim does not prove Platonism. By Platonism, or better arithmetical realism I just mean the belief by many

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Tom Caylor
1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 26-oct.-06, à 17:52, 1Z a écrit : No, I am just asking. I have even come up with formulations like real in the sense that I am real which avoid begging any questions about what kind of reality I have. Ah OK. I guess that is the RITSIAR. I

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread 1Z
Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 26-oct.-06, à 17:52, 1Z a écrit : No, I am just asking. I have even come up with formulations like real in the sense that I am real which avoid begging any questions about what kind of reality I have. Ah OK.

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Bruno has tried to introduce us before to the concept of universes or worlds made from logic, bottom up (a la constructing elephants). These universes can be consistent or inconsistent. But approaching it from the empirical side (top down rather

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 26-oct.-06, à 21:11, 1Z a écrit : If your definition of truth is limited to logical inference given a certain set of axioms and inference rules, then what are we trying to do on the Everything List? That's *mathematical* truth. It is not. This is just

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread 1Z
Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Bruno has tried to introduce us before to the concept of universes or worlds made from logic, bottom up (a la constructing elephants). These universes can be consistent or inconsistent. But approaching it from the

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 26-oct.-06, à 18:02, 1Z a écrit : Measure is a lot more difficult in MMW. It has to be deprived by apriori necessity. Do you have a solution? A good candidate for apriori necessity (and possibility) is provability (and conssitency) by a lobian machine.

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Peter Jones writes: I think it is simpler to go back to your own clones-in-the-next-room example rather than introducing the complication of neurophysiology (or indeed physics). You are informed that your current stream of consciousness is either being

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Tom Caylor
1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 26-oct.-06, à 21:11, 1Z a écrit : If your definition of truth is limited to logical inference given a certain set of axioms and inference rules, then what are we trying to do on the Everything List? That's *mathematical* truth. It is not.

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Tom Caylor
Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Bruno has tried to introduce us before to the concept of universes or worlds made from logic, bottom up (a la constructing elephants). These universes can be consistent or inconsistent. But approaching it from the

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Tom Caylor
Tom Caylor wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Bruno has tried to introduce us before to the concept of universes or worlds made from logic, bottom up (a la constructing elephants). These universes can be consistent or inconsistent. But

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread 1Z
Tom Caylor wrote: 1Z wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 26-oct.-06, à 21:11, 1Z a écrit : If your definition of truth is limited to logical inference given a certain set of axioms and inference rules, then what are we trying to do on the Everything List? That's

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent meeker writes: That is not clear to me. Perhaps it turns on the meaning of content in an OM. Generally if my OM's are taken to be on the order of a second or longer, I think the order could be reconstructed from the content. But I also think there

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Brent Meeker
Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Bruno has tried to introduce us before to the concept of universes or worlds made from logic, bottom up (a la constructing elephants). These universes can be consistent or inconsistent. But approaching it from the empirical side (top

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
into position in each case by virtue of its content alone. Stathis Papaioannou From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:14:03 -0700 Stathis Papaioannou wrote

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-27 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Brent meeker writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Peter Jones writes: I think it is simpler to go back to your own clones-in-the-next-room example rather than introducing the complication of neurophysiology (or indeed physics). You are informed that your current stream of

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-26 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Peter Jones writes (quoting David Nyman): The key aspect is that the structure of each OM is inherently what might be termed a perceiver-percept dyad - that is, it must contain whatever process or structure is involved both in *representing* the available information and *responding*

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-26 Thread David Nyman
1Z wrote: I don't see why. Are you saying they are still closed even if their information content is similar? Why should that be? How can I fail to have similar information content to myself five minutes form now? Why doesn't it apply spatially? Why doensnt each neuron have its own

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 25-oct.-06, à 13:57, 1Z a écrit : Brent Meeker wrote: It's even more than seeing where axioms and rules of inference lead. Given some axioms and rules of inference the only truths you can reach are those of the form It is true that axioms = theorems. For formalists, all

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-26 Thread David Nyman
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: (b) can't be right. However many copies of you there are, you only experience being one at a time. Stathis, I concur with this view, and for the reasons you give. However, much as I hate to complicate this issue further, I wonder if you have a view on the

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 23-oct.-06, à 00:12, 1Z a écrit : Huh? Computationalism is no more able to account for qualia than physicalism. Computationalism (the standard one) through my work (don't hesitate to criticize it) gives a precise account of qualia. It is even a refutable theory of both quanta and

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-26 Thread 1Z
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 25-oct.-06, à 13:57, 1Z a écrit : Brent Meeker wrote: It's even more than seeing where axioms and rules of inference lead. Given some axioms and rules of inference the only truths you can reach are those of the form It is true that axioms = theorems. For

RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-26 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
David Nyman writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: (b) can't be right. However many copies of you there are, you only experience being one at a time. Stathis, I concur with this view, and for the reasons you give. However, much as I hate to complicate this issue further, I wonder if

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-26 Thread 1Z
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Peter Jones writes: I don't see how a physical multiverse would be distinguishable from a virtual reality or a mathematical reality (assuming the latter is possible, for the sake of this part of the argument). The successive moments of your

  1   2   3   >