Le 26-janv.-07, à 15:13, Mark Peaty a écrit :
Bruno:
4) Mark Peaty wrote (to Brent):
As I say, the essence of evil is the act of treating other persons as
things.
I so agree with you. And then, with Church thesis (less than comp,
thus) you can understand the reason why even some
Le 26-janv.-07, à 19:00, Tom Caylor a écrit :
Why do we need to eliminate first-person white rabbits? For purposes
of science, is not elimination of third-person (or first-person plural)
white rabbits sufficient?
That would be dishonest. You could eliminate the very idea of first
person,
Bruno:
4) Mark Peaty wrote (to Brent):
As I say, the essence of evil is the act of treating other persons
as things.
I so agree with you. And then, with Church thesis (less than comp, thus)
you can understand the reason why even some (relative) machine and some
(relative) numbers
Le 26-janv.-07, à 11:11, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
It seems to me that abstract machines have been created for our
benefit, rather like mathematical notation or human language. That is,
they allow us to think about algorithms and to consider how we might
build a physical machine to
On Jan 26, 9:22 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, I still don't understand how you will avoid the white rabbits.
By extracting the physical laws from some 1-person machine measure.
This one can be extracted from some interview of an honest
self-observing machine. Well, to
Hi Stathis,
Here is the follow up of my comments on your post. It seems we
completely agree. Sorry.
Le 23-janv.-07, à 06:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Simplistically, I conceive of computations as mysterious abstract
objects, like
all other mathematical objects. Physical computers
Brent Meeker writes:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
Now, when you run the UD, as far as you keep the discourse in the third
person mode, everything remains enumerable, even in the limit.
But from the first person point of view, a priori the uncountable
stories, indeed generated by the UD,
Bruno marchal writes:
Le 23-janv.-07, à 06:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Simplistically, I conceive of computations as mysterious abstract
objects, like
all other mathematical objects. Physical computers are devices which
reflect
these mathematical objects in order to achieve
Bruno,
as another chap with learned English in vertical stance I partially
agree with your 'plural' as would all English mother-tongued people, but I
also consider the gramatically probably inproper points of views, since WE
allow different 'views' in our considerations. Stathis may choose his
Le 25-janv.-07, à 12:25, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 23-janv.-07, à 06:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Searle is not a computationalist - does not believe in strong AI -
but
he does
believe in weak AI. Penrose does not believe in weak AI either.
Yes. In
Le 25-janv.-07, à 16:48, John Mikes a écrit :
Bruno,
as another chap with learned English in vertical stance I
partially agree with your 'plural' as would all English
mother-tongued people, but I also consider the gramatically probably
inproper points of views, since WE allow different
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 23-janv.-07, à 06:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Searle's theory is that consciousness is a result of actual brain
activity, not Turing emulable.
No... True: Searle's theory is that consciousness is a result
of brain
Brent Meeker writes: Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:52:01 -0800 From: [EMAIL
PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Rép : The
Meaning of Life Stathis Papaioannou wrote:Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 23-janv.-07, à 06:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Searle's
theory
Le 23-janv.-07, à 06:17, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Searle's theory is that consciousness is a result of actual brain
activity, not Turing emulable.
No... True: Searle's theory is that consciousness is a result
of brain activity, but nowhere does Searle pretend that brain is
-
From: 1Z
To: Everything List
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Rép : The Meaning of Life
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Also, nobody has proved the existence of a primitive physical universe.
Or of a Platonia
Le 18-janv.-07, à 06:38, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
To avoid to much posts in your mail box, I send all my comments in
this post,
Hi Brent,
1a) Brent meeker wrote (quoting Jim Heldberg) :
Atheism is not a religion, just as a vacant lot is not a type of
Bruno Marchal writes:
1c) Brent wrote (to Stathis):
How is this infinite regress avoided in our world? By
consciousness
not representing the rest of the world.
That is an interesting idea. You could elaborate a bit perhaps? I do
agree with your most of your recent replies
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 18-janv.-07, à 04:10, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
I would say relative to a theory explaining the appearances, not
just to the appearances.
Well, it is relative to appearance, but people go on to theorise that
these appearances are true reality.
Brent,
I must go, so I will just comment one line before commenting the other
paragraph (tomorrow, normally).
Le 18-janv.-07, à 06:38, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Why isn't the computer (or rock) associated with an infinity of
computations? I'm assuming you mean a potential countable infinity
[SP] The common sense view is that there is an
underlying primitive physical reality generating this appearance
Your assumption of underlying primitive physical reality puts you
in the line of believers. It is not necessary to make such assumption
to build predictive theories to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[SP] The common sense view is that there is an
underlying primitive physical reality generating this appearance
Your assumption of underlying primitive physical reality puts you
in the line of believers. It is not necessary to make such assumption
to build
Brent Meeker wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[SP] The common sense view is that there is an
underlying primitive physical reality generating this appearance
Your assumption of underlying primitive physical reality puts you
in the line of believers. It is not necessary to make such
Bruno Marchal wrote:
To avoid to much posts in your mail box, I send all my comments in this
post,
Hi Brent,
1a) Brent meeker wrote (quoting Jim Heldberg) :
Atheism is not a religion, just as a vacant lot is not a type of
building, and health is not a form of sickness. Atheism is
23 matches
Mail list logo
