On 2/22/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
A patient says that his leg is paralysed, behaves as if his leg is
paralysed, but the clinical signs and investigations are not consistent
with a paralysed leg. The diagnosis of hysterical paralysis is made. A
On 2/22/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis:
Stathis [from the other posting again]: 'There is good reason to
believe that the third person observable behaviour of the brain can be
emulated, because the brain is just chemical reactions and chemistry is a
well-understood
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/22/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
A patient says that his leg is paralysed, behaves as if his leg is
paralysed, but the clinical signs and investigations are not
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/22/07, *Mark Peaty* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
The idea of the Turing test is that an algorithmic implementation of
rules will give the required degree of spontaneous creativity. If you
don't believe in this, then you don't
Stathis:
Stathis [from the other posting again]: 'There is good reason to
believe that the third person observable behaviour of the brain can
be emulated, because the brain is just chemical reactions and
chemistry is a well-understood field.'
MP: Once again it depends what
Jesse,
you differentiate between 'real' (I think you refer to physically
measureable)
and 'hallucinatorally (excuse for the substitute vocabulary) ((visual))
input to the
mind. I wonder if it is right: we acknowledge an nth transformation result
of
inputs reaching the understanding organ (whatever
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/21/07, *Jesse Mazer* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
It is a complicated issue. Patients with psychotic illnesses can
sometimes
reflect on a past episode and see that they
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/21/07, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
It is a complicated issue. Patients with psychotic illnesses can
sometimes
reflect on a past episode and see that they were unwell then even
though
they insisted they were
I was referring to my own clinical observation treating psychiatric
patients. Patients with schizophrenia undoubtedly have perceptions in the
absence of stimuli: they have certain stereotypical features which make them
instantly recognisable, get better with antipsychotics and fMRI studies show
On 2/20/07, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis (barging in to your post to Mark);
Your premis is redundant, a limited model (machine) cannot be (act,
perform, sense, react etc.) identical to the total it was cut out from. So
you cannot prove it eitherG. As i GOT the difference
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/20/07, *Mark Peaty* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis:'Would any device that can create a representation of the
world, itself and the relationship between the world and itself be
conscious?'
MP: Well that, in a
Le 19-févr.-07, à 20:14, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 18-févr.-07, à 13:57, Mark Peaty a écrit :
My main problem with Comp is that it needs several unprovable
assumptions to be accepted. For example the Yes Doctor hypothesis,
wherein it is assumed that it
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/20/07, *Jesse Mazer* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would bet on functionalism as the correct theory of mind for various
reasons, but I don't see that there is anything illogical the
possibility
that
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 19-févr.-07, à 20:14, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 18-févr.-07, à 13:57, Mark Peaty a écrit :
My main problem with Comp is that it needs several unprovable
assumptions to be accepted. For example the Yes Doctor hypothesis,
wherein
On 2/21/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A human with an intact brain behaving like an awake human could not
really be a zombie unless you believe in magic. However, it is possible
to conceive of intelligently-behaving beings who do not have an internal
life because they lack the
On 2/21/07, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/20/07, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would bet on functionalism as the correct theory of mind for
various
reasons, but I don't see that there is anything illogical the
possibility
that
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
It is a complicated issue. Patients with psychotic illnesses can sometimes
reflect on a past episode and see that they were unwell then even though
they insisted they were not at the time. They then might say something
like,
I don't know I'm unwell when I'm unwell,
On 2/21/07, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
It is a complicated issue. Patients with psychotic illnesses can
sometimes
reflect on a past episode and see that they were unwell then even though
they insisted they were not at the time. They then might say
On Feb 18, 5:46 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/18/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My main problem with Comp is that it needs several unprovable assumptions to
be accepted. For example the Yes Doctor hypothesis, wherein it is assumed
that it must be
On 2/18/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MP: Well at least I can say now that I have some inkling of what 'machine's
theology' means. However, as far as I can see it is inherent in the nature
of consciousness to reify something. I have not seen anywhere a refutation
of my favoured
Pls see after Jason's remark
John
- Original Message -
From: Jason
To: Everything List
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:42 AM
Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error
On Feb 18, 5:46 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/18/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED
Stathis:'Would any device that can create a representation of the world,
itself and the relationship between the world and itself be conscious?'
MP: Well that, in a nutshell, is how I understand it; with the proviso
that it is dynamic: that all representations of all salient features and
On Feb 19, 7:50 am, John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pls see after Jason's remark
John
- Original Message -
From: Jason
To: Everything List
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:42 AM
Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error
On Feb 18, 5:46 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 18-févr.-07, à 13:57, Mark Peaty a écrit :
My main problem with Comp is that it needs several unprovable
assumptions to be accepted. For example the Yes Doctor hypothesis,
wherein it is assumed that it must be possible to digitally emulate
some
I would bet on functionalism as the correct theory of mind for various
reasons, but I don't see that there is anything illogical the possibility
that consciousness is substrate-dependent. Let's say that when you rub two
carbon atoms together they have a scratchy experience, whereas when you rub
As I wrote in my response to Russell Standish:
* I think [Russell's] 'kicks back' = physical = measurable in some
way, and
* I think 'exists' is a generic, irreducible, ultimate value. In
fact it is THE generic, irreducible, ultimate value and it
underlies mathematical
My apologies if my replying seems a bit slow. I *have* been thinking
about these things though. I thought to try and make excuses, but really
all that is necessary, amongst ethical correspondents anyway, is a
forthright confession of mental inadequacy, n'est ce pas? :-)
I think 'kicks back'
Le 07-févr.-07, à 17:34, Mark Peaty a écrit :
Bruno: 'Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have
understand the whole point. Some are close to it, perhaps by having
figure this out by themselves.'
MP: Don't look at me boss ... I'm just glad I don't have to
understand 'it' to
Le 07-févr.-07, à 18:06, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
Mark Peaty skrev: And next: what do you mean by 'exist'?
Our Universe is a mathemathical possibility. That is why our
Universe exists. Every mathematically possible Universe exists in the
same way. But we can not get in touch with
.
I'm not sure why.
Bruno
I can't wait for Bruno's (and others') versions.
John M
and let me join Angelica [Rugrat](???)
- Original Message -
From: Mark Peaty
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: Searles
not sure why.
Bruno
I can't wait for Bruno's (and others') versions.
John M
and let me join Angelica [Rugrat](???)
- Original Message -
From: Mark Peaty
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: Searles
Bruno: 'Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have understand
the whole point. Some are close to it, perhaps by having figure this out
by themselves.'
MP: Don't look at me boss ... I'm just glad I don't have to understand
'it' to be able to exist within it!
SO, yes I will ask: What
Mark Peaty skrev:
And next: what do you mean by 'exist'?
'Exist' is exactly the same as 'mathematical possibility'.
Our Universe is a mathemathical possibility. That is why our Universe
exists. Every mathematically possible Universe exists in the same
way. But we can not get in touch
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Mark Peaty skrev:
And next: what do you mean by 'exist'?
'Exist' is exactly the same as 'mathematical possibility'.
Our Universe is a mathemathical possibility. That is why our Universe
exists. Every mathematically possible Universe exists in the same way.
But
Brent Meeker skrev:
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Mark Peaty skrev:
And next: what do you mean by 'exist'?
'Exist' is exactly the same as 'mathematical possibility'.
Our Universe is a mathemathical possibility. That is why our Universe
exists. Every mathematically possible
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Brent Meeker skrev:
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Mark Peaty skrev:
And next: what do you mean by 'exist'?
'Exist' is exactly the same as 'mathematical possibility'.
Our Universe is a mathemathical possibility. That is why our Universe
exists. Every
By who's logic?
John M
- Original Message -
From: Torgny Tholerus
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error
Brent Meeker skrev:
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Mark Peaty skrev
[Rugrat](???)
- Original Message -
From: Mark Peaty
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error
Bruno: 'Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have understand the
whole point. Some
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 06:10:34PM -0500, John M wrote:
I can't wait for Bruno's (and others') versions.
John M
My take on physical and existence.
Physical: that which kicks back in the Samuel Johnson sense. It
doesn't rule out idealism, because the virtual reality in a VR
simulation
Hi Mark,
Le 03-févr.-07, à 17:12, Mark Peaty a écrit :
John, I share your apparent perplexity. No matter which way up I look
at the things being discussed on this list, I always end up back in
the same place [and yes it is always 'here' :-] which is that clearly
prior to anything else
John, I share your apparent perplexity. No matter which way up I look at
the things being discussed on this list, I always end up back in the
same place [and yes it is always 'here' :-] which is that clearly prior
to anything else is the fact of existence. I have to take this at too
levels:
Mark, a profound THANKS!
I did not reflect lately to your posts (good for you?) because you seemed to
merge into the topics on hand.
Descartes? a funny story. He was under the thumb of the Inquisition-times
and HAD to write idealistically. My version is not so humble as yours: I
think, therefore
between zero
and a very small number or infinity and a very large number. Stathis
PapaioannouDate: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 01:12:42 +0900From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL
PROTECTED]: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error
John, I share your apparent
perplexity. No matter which way up I look
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 29-janv.-07, à 21:33, 1Z a écrit :
On 24 Jan, 11:42, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 23-janv.-07, à 15:59, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Also, nobody has proved the existence of a primitive physical
universe.
Or of a PlatoniaCall it Platonia,
On Thursday 01 February 2007 19:28:07 Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 29-janv.-07, à 21:33, 1Z a écrit :
On 24 Jan, 11:42, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 23-janv.-07, à 15:59, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Also, nobody has proved the existence of a primitive
On Thursday 01 February 2007 19:34:41 Brent Meeker wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On Thursday 01 February 2007 19:28:07 Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 29-janv.-07, à 21:33, 1Z a écrit :
On 24 Jan, 11:42, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 23-janv.-07, à 15:59, 1Z a
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On Thursday 01 February 2007 19:34:41 Brent Meeker wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On Thursday 01 February 2007 19:28:07 Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 29-janv.-07, à 21:33, 1Z a écrit :
On 24 Jan, 11:42, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le
On Thursday 01 February 2007 19:34:41 Brent Meeker wrote:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
On Thursday 01 February 2007 19:28:07 Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 29-janv.-07, à 21:33, 1Z a écrit :
On 24 Jan, 11:42, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 23-janv.-07, à 15:59, 1Z a
On 24 Jan, 11:42, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 23-janv.-07, à 15:59, 1Z a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Also, nobody has proved the existence of a primitive physical
universe.
Or of a PlatoniaCall it Platonia, God, Universe, or Glass-of-Beer, we don'
t care. But
we
49 matches
Mail list logo
