Dear Bruno and Friends,
I was re-reading the Mauldin paper again and something struck me that I had
not noticed before. I hope that I am not way over my head on this one, but I
think that there is something of a straw man in Mauldin’s definition of the
supervenience thesis! He assumes the p
Hi Stephen,
If the "non active piece of matter" plays a role in the computation,
it means that we have not choose the correct substitution level. For
example the brain would be a quantum computer. But quantum computer
are Turing emulable, and so its work is emulated by the Universal
Dovet
copy its state.
I just want to understand if its possible to model a plurality of
computations.
Onward!
Stephen
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 6:24 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A comment on Mauldin's paper “Computation and Consciousnes
; *Sent:* Tuesday, January 25, 2011 6:24 AM
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: A comment on Mauldin's paper “Computation and
> Consciousness”
> Hi Stephen,
>
> If the "non active piece of matter" plays a role in the computation, it
> means
From: Quentin Anciaux
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 8:07 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A comment on Mauldin's paper “Computation and Consciousness”
Hi Stephen,
Well the asumption is that the mind is turing emulable... a turing machine is a
mathematical object. When I
On 25 Jan 2011, at 15:47, Stephen Paul King wrote:
The supervenience thesis is separate from the Turing thesis and
Mauldin does a good job in distinguishing them.
Just to be clear, what Maudlin call "supervenience thesis" is what I
called "physical supervenience thesis", to distinguis
On 1/27/2011 10:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jan 2011, at 15:47, Stephen Paul King wrote:
The supervenience thesis is separate from the Turing thesis and
Mauldin does a good job in distinguishing them.
Just to be clear, what Maudlin call "supervenience thesis" is what I
called "ph
On 27 Jan 2011, at 22:12, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 10:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jan 2011, at 15:47, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Mathematical structures do not “do” anything, they merely
exist, if at all! We can use verbs to describe relations between
nouns but that d
Hi Brent and Bruno,
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 5:23 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A comment on Mauldin's paper “Computation and Consciousness”
On 27 Jan 2011, at 22:12, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 10:23 AM, Bruno Marchal
On 1/27/2011 2:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2011, at 22:12, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 10:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jan 2011, at 15:47, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Mathematical structures do not “do” anything, they merely
exist, if at all! We can use verbs to des
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> What does "locally" mean in this context? I doubt that consciousness is
> strictly local in the physical sense; it requires and world to interact
> with.
I would have thought that dreams would be a pretty clear
counter-example to the claim
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> But if the
> emulation attempts to be local then it must include inherent randomness -
> which I think is not Turing computable.
The Turing machine could draw the required randomness from a tape of
random bits, couldn't it?
The question migh
On 28 Jan 2011, at 01:58, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 2:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Jan 2011, at 22:12, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 10:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Jan 2011, at 15:47, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Mathematical structures do not “do” anything, the
On 1/27/2011 8:34 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
What does "locally" mean in this context? I doubt that consciousness is
strictly local in the physical sense; it requires and world to interact
with.
I would have thought that dreams would be
On 1/27/2011 8:34 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
What does "locally" mean in this context? I doubt that consciousness is
strictly local in the physical sense; it requires and world to interact
with.
I would have thought that dreams would be
On 1/27/2011 10:08 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
But if the
emulation attempts to be local then it must include inherent randomness -
which I think is not Turing computable.
The Turing machine could draw the required randomness from a tape
On 28 Jan 2011, at 18:48, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 8:34 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Brent
Meeker wrote:
What does "locally" mean in this context? I doubt that
consciousness is
strictly local in the physical sense; it requires and world to
interact
wi
On 28 Jan 2011, at 18:52, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 10:08 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Brent
Meeker wrote:
But if the
emulation attempts to be local then it must include inherent
randomness -
which I think is not Turing computable.
The Turing machine c
Dear Stephen (- and Friends, especially Bruno)
you quoted from Mauldin's p. 409:
“If an active physical system supports a phenomenal state, how could the
presence or absence of a causally disconnected object effect that state? How
could the object enhance or imped
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 1/27/2011 8:34 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Brent Meeker
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What does "locally" mean in this context? I doubt that consciousness is
>>> strictly local in the physical sense; it requires an
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 1/27/2011 10:08 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Brent Meeker
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But if the
>>> emulation attempts to be local then it must include inherent randomness -
>>> which I think is not Turing computa
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 28 Jan 2011, at 18:48, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>> On 1/27/2011 8:34 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Brent Meeker
>>> wrote:
>>>
What does "locally" mean in this context? I doubt that consciousness is
>>
On 1/28/2011 7:44 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 8:34 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Brent Meeker
wrote:
What does "locally" mean in this context? I doubt that consciousness is
strictly local
On 1/28/2011 7:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 10:08 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Brent Meeker
wrote:
But if the
emulation attempts to be local then it must include inherent randomness -
w
On 1/28/2011 7:59 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Jan 2011, at 18:48, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 8:34 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Brent Meeker
wrote:
What does "locally" mean in t
On 29 Jan 2011, at 04:59, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 28 Jan 2011, at 18:48, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 8:34 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Brent Meeker>
wrote:
What does "locally" mean in this context? I dou
Rex,
Well here I disagree (with Wikipedia, not with Turing, although he is
responsible for this widespread misconception).
The discovery of the universal machine by Turing is the discovery of a
finite Turing machine capable of emulating all the other machine from
a number description (a p
Rex, Brent,
On 1/28/2011 7:59 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 28 Jan 2011, at 18:48, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/27/2011 8:34 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Brent Meeker>
wrote:
What does "locally" mean in this con
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>> On 1/27/2011 8:34 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
I would have thought that dreams would be a pretty clear
counter-example to the claim that consciousness requires a world to
interact with...?
>>>
>>> Do you think you could have dr
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
> On 1/28/2011 7:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Brent Meeker
>> wrote:
>>> On 1/27/2011 10:08 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Brent Meeker
wrote:
> But if the emulation attempt
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Rex,
>
> Well here I disagree (with Wikipedia, not with Turing, although he is
> responsible for this widespread misconception).
Well, I'll buy that, I reckon. Though the usage of the term "infinite
tape" is pretty widespread. I see it lot
On 1/29/2011 10:41 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Rex,
Well here I disagree (with Wikipedia, not with Turing, although he is
responsible for this widespread misconception).
Well, I'll buy that, I reckon. Though the usage of the term "infi
On 30 Jan 2011, at 07:41, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
Rex,
Well here I disagree (with Wikipedia, not with Turing, although he is
responsible for this widespread misconception).
Well, I'll buy that, I reckon. Though the usage of the term "infinit
On 30 Jan 2011, at 08:14, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 1/29/2011 10:41 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
Rex,
Well here I disagree (with Wikipedia, not with Turing, although he
is
responsible for this widespread misconception).
Well, I'll buy that,
On Jan 25, 9:04 am, "Stephen Paul King" wrote:
> Dear Bruno and Friends,
>
> While we are considering the idea of “causal efficacy” here and not
> hidden variable theories, the fact that it has been experimentally verified
> that Nature violates the principle Locality. Therefore the assum
s not just
another straw man argument. I also happen to be working on a book and thus
want to be sure that my own hypothesis is not junk.
Onward!
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: 1Z
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 4:13 PM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: A comment on Mauldin's paper “
On Jan 30, 4:13 pm, 1Z wrote:
> On Jan 25, 9:04 am, "Stephen Paul King" wrote:
>>
> > Dear Bruno and Friends,
>>
>> While we are considering the idea of “causal efficacy”
>> here and not hidden variable theories, the fact that it
>> has been experimentally verified that Nature violates
>> the pr
A comment on Mauldin's paper “Computation and Consciousness”
On Jan 30, 4:13 pm, 1Z wrote:
On Jan 25, 9:04 am, "Stephen Paul King" wrote:
> Dear Bruno and Friends,
While we are considering the idea of “causal efficacy”
here and not hidden variable theories, the fact tha
macroscopically significant periods of time in the eyes of birds.
Don't they have a higher average body temperature than humans?
-Original Message- From: David Shipman
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 7:41 PM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: A comment on Mauldin's paper “
ssage-
From: Brent Meeker
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 11:20 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: A comment on Mauldin's paper “Computation and Consciousness”
Note that the kind of entanglement you're talking about is the same as
randomness. Bohm's vers
peer-reviewed journal discussing how entangled
>> states are present for macroscopically significant periods of time in the
>> eyes of birds. Don't they have a higher average body temperature than
>> humans?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Messag
e that it is not just
> another straw man argument. I also happen to be working on a book and thus
> want to be sure that my own hypothesis is not junk.
>
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
> -Original Message-
> From: 1Z
> Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 4:13 PM
> To
On Feb 1, 12:41 am, David Shipman wrote:
> On Jan 30, 4:13 pm, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 9:04 am, "Stephen Paul King" wrote:
>
> > > Dear Bruno and Friends,
>
> >> While we are considering the idea of “causal efficacy”
> >> here and not hidden variable theories, the fact that it
> >> has
On 2/14/2011 5:03 PM, 1Z wrote:
This isn't true, is it?
>
> So we have two particles (A and B) that are entangled.
>
> Entanglement is never destroyed, it is only obscured by subsequent
> interactions with the environment.
>
> Particle A goes zooming off into outer space.
>
> 10 years later,
44 matches
Mail list logo
