On 26 Oct 2012, at 21:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/26/2012 5:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Oct 2012, at 07:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/24/2012 9:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Or what if we don't care? We don't care about slaughtering
cattle, which are pretty smart
as computers go. We
On 25 Oct 2012, at 07:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/24/2012 9:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Or what if we don't care? We don't care about slaughtering cattle,
which are pretty smart
as computers go. We manage not to think about starving children in
Africa, and they *are*
humans. And we
On 25 Oct 2012, at 19:54, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/25/2012 12:05 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Oct 2012, at 03:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If we turn the Fading Qualia argument around, what we get is a
world in which Comp is true and it is impossible to simulate
cellular activity
On 10/26/2012 5:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Oct 2012, at 07:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/24/2012 9:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Or what if we don't care? We don't care about slaughtering cattle, which
are
pretty smart
as computers go. We manage not to think about starving
On 10/24/2012 10:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:29:24 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/24/2012 10:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:10:24 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/24/2012 9:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On 10/25/2012 2:01 AM, meekerdb wrote:
To me, there is no chalkboard world. It's all dusty and flat. Not
much sexy going on, except maybe for beaten erasers.
To you maybe, but what about the chalk-people's qualia.
Brent
Good question! We can ask the same question of mathematical
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 2:01:44 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/24/2012 10:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:29:24 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/24/2012 10:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:10:24 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 25 Oct 2012, at 03:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If we turn the Fading Qualia argument around, what we get is a world
in which Comp is true and it is impossible to simulate cellular
activity without evoking the presumed associated experience.
If we wanted to test a new painkiller for
On 10/25/2012 12:05 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Oct 2012, at 03:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If we turn the Fading Qualia argument around, what we get is a world
in which Comp is true and it is impossible to simulate cellular
activity without evoking the presumed associated experience.
If
If we turn the Fading Qualia argument around, what we get is a world in
which Comp is true and it is impossible to simulate cellular activity
without evoking the presumed associated experience.
If we wanted to test a new painkiller for instance, Comp=true means that it
is *IMPOSSIBLE* to model
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If we turn the Fading Qualia argument around, what we get is a world in
which Comp is true and it is impossible to simulate cellular activity
without evoking the presumed associated experience.
If we wanted to test
On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 10:05:40 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
If we turn the Fading Qualia argument around, what we get is a world in
which Comp is true and it is impossible to simulate cellular
On 10/24/2012 6:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If we turn the Fading Qualia argument around, what we get is a world in which Comp is
true and it is impossible to simulate cellular activity without evoking the presumed
associated experience.
If we wanted to test a new painkiller for instance,
On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 10:54:52 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/24/2012 6:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If we turn the Fading Qualia argument around, what we get is a world in
which Comp is
true and it is impossible to simulate cellular activity without evoking
the presumed
On 10/24/2012 9:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Or what if we don't care? We don't care about slaughtering cattle, which
are pretty
smart
as computers go. We manage not to think about starving children in Africa,
and they
*are*
humans. And we ignore the looming disasters
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:10:24 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/24/2012 9:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Or what if we don't care? We don't care about slaughtering cattle, which
are pretty smart
as computers go. We manage not to think about starving children in
Africa, and they
On 10/24/2012 10:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:10:24 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/24/2012 9:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Or what if we don't care? We don't care about slaughtering cattle,
which are
pretty smart
as computers go.
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:29:24 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/24/2012 10:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:10:24 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/24/2012 9:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Or what if we don't care? We don't care about slaughtering cattle,
18 matches
Mail list logo
