Re: No MWI
So,in terms of the many worlds interpretation, what is the standard narrative explanation of the double slit experiment? In particular, in MWI-speak, what exactly happens when you know which slit the photon has passed through that causes the interference pattern disappear? Also, what is the MWI-based explanation for the quantum eraser experiment? Rex --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: No MWI
Le 18-mai-09, à 09:25, rexallen...@gmail.com a écrit : So,in terms of the many worlds interpretation, what is the standard narrative explanation of the double slit experiment? I guess you are referring to the materialist MWI of QM, and not to the idealist MWI of Arithmetic (often discussed here). I suggest you read the book by David Deutsch The Fabric of Reality which motivates the QM MWI from the two slits experiments (well David uses four slits for making it clearer). You can ask supplementary questions on the FOR mailing list if you have still problems. In particular, in MWI-speak, what exactly happens when you know which slit the photon has passed through that causes the interference pattern disappear? You get entangled with the outcome (which slit the phton has gone through). Your 2^aleph_zero consciousness states differentiate into about two continuum of worlds where you can remember which slit the photon has gone through. Measurement let you know in which relative part you are in the multiverse-partition defined by your measuring apparatus. Also, what is the MWI-based explanation for the quantum eraser experiment? Erasing memory is the main way to fuse, or undifferentiate the QM (or comp) states, so that you can prepare an experiment corresponding to another partition of the multiverse. Saibal Mitra has proposed recently on the list some exploitation of this feature. Search his name on the arxiv.org, in the quant-phys part: Changing the past by forgetting. Bruno Marchal http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness is information?
Note also that, by being universal machine, our look-up table are infinite. Bruno Le 18-mai-09, à 03:11, Kelly Harmon a écrit : On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@hotmail.com wrote: I don't have a problem with the idea that a giant lookup table is just a sort of zombie, since after all the way you'd create a lookup table for a given algorithmic mind would be to run a huge series of actual simulations of that mind with all possible inputs, creating a huge archive of recordings so that later if anyone supplies the lookup table with a given input, the table just looks up the recording of the occasion in which the original simulated mind was supplied with that exact input in the past, and plays it back. Why should merely replaying a recording of something that happened to a simulated observer in the past contribute to the measure of that observer-moment? I don't believe that playing a videotape of me being happy or sad in the past will increase the measure of happy or sad observer-moments involving me, after all. And Olympia seems to be somewhat similar to a lookup table in that the only way to construct her would be to have already run the regular Turing machine program that she is supposed to emulate, so that you know in advance the order that the Turing machine's read/write head visits different cells, and then you can rearrange the positions of those cells so Olympia will visit them in the correct order just by going from one cell to the next in line over and over again. What if you used a lookup table for only a single neuron in a computer simulation of a brain? So actual calculations for the rest of the brain's neurons are performed, but this single neuron just does lookups into a table of pre-calculated outputs. Would consciousness still be produced in this case? What if you then re-ran the simulation with 10 neurons doing lookups, but calculations still being executed for the rest of the simulated brain? Still consciousness is produced? What if 10% of the neurons are implemented using lookup tables? 50%? 90%? How about all except 1 neuron is implemented via lookup tables, but that 1 neuron's outputs are still calculated from inputs? At what point does the simulation become a zombie? http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness is information?
Le 17-mai-09, à 12:43, Alberto G.Corona a écrit :
The hard problem may be unsolvable, but I think it would be much more
unsolvable if we don´t fix the easy problem, isn´t?
I think that the hard problem is more easy to solve than the easy
problem.
Indeed it is a theorem in computer science that an (ideally) correct
universal machine which introspects itself (in the usual mathematical
self-referential (Lobian) sense) will discover (not prove, but still
produce as true) many non machine-communicable statements.
AUDA gives a thorough precise theory of qualia, which is Popper
refutable, in the (idealist) sense that the quanta appears as
particular type of sharable first person plural qualia. If it appears
false on quanta, we can abandon that theory of qualia too!
What is cute in AUDA, is that it provides an explanation why the hard
problem of consciousness has to seem hard from the point of view of
the machine. In a sense the hard problem is proved to be unsolvable by
any direct means, but completely meta-solvable.
It relies mainly on the Gödel points where Penrose and Lucas are wrong:
machine *can* access their own incompleteness theorem through local
self-consistency assumptions.
With a clear idea
of the easy problem it is possible to infer something about the hard
problem:
For example, the latter is a product of the former, because we
perceive things that have (or had) relevance in evolutionary terms.
Second, the unitary nature of perception match well with the
evolutionary explanation My inner self is a private reconstruction,
for fitness purposes, of how others see me, as an unit of perception
and purpose, not as a set of processors, motors and sensors, although,
analytically, we are so. Third, the machinery of this constructed
inner self sometimes take control (i.e. we feel ourselves capable of
free will) whenever our acts would impact of the image that others may
have of ourselves.
If these conclusions are all in the easy lever, I think that we have
solved a few of moral and perceptual problems that have puzzled
philosophers and scientists for centuries. Relabeling them as easy
problems the instant after an evolutionary explanation of them has
been aired is preposterous.
Therefore I think that I answer your question: it´s not only
information; It´s about a certain kind of information and their own
processor. The exact nature of this processor that permits qualia is
not known;
I think we know (assuming comp) the exact nature of that processor.
It is an immaterial universal machine. The machine does not need to be
Lobian (as some people think). It needs only to be lobian to be able to
develop by its own this very special theory of qualia and quanta.
I agree with your critic of consciousness = information. This is not
even wrong, and Kelly should define what he means by information so
that we could see what he really means. I suspect Kelly is confusing
information and information content. Information content needs the
(immaterial and atemporal) processing of a universal machine or number.
Not a physical processing, but a processing similar to those in the UD,
or implemented naturally in (a tiny part) of Arithmetic.
that’s true, and it´s good from my point of view, because,
for one side, the unknown is stimulating and for the other,
reductionist explanations for everything, like the mine above, are a
bit frustrating.
I can explain in what sense comp is a vaccine against reductionism, but
you have to be familiar with the UD Argument. Even the physics which
appears cannot be reduced, still less the person. Hmm ..., you still
believe we can have both comp and a primitive material universe, isn't
it?
Computationalism leads to a genuine non trivial and refutable solution
of both the hard problem of matter *and* the hard problem of
consciousness. It preserves the necessity of an irreducible gap between
those things (and other things), but it provides a geometry of that
gap, together with an explanation of the mystery feeling. Of course (in
case you have read some of my older post), the geometry of the gap is
provided by the possible modal semantics of the logic G* \minus G, and
its intensional variants, (all this on the Sigma_1 restriction, to take
into account the comp hyp and the Universal Dovetailer in Arithmetic).
The bad news is that the easy problem of matter and consciousness,
thorugh comp could as well be as diificult as possible. It remains
possible that only very long computation can lead tp present form of
human mind and matter. Computationalism does not just reverse math and
physics, or theology and physics, it reverse hard and easy ...
Eventually everything is reduced to the (deep) mystery of our
understanding of an assertion like N = {0, 1, 2, ...}. But, by
accepting that the expression N = {0, 1, 2, ...} makes sense, we can
explain in all detail why this one is absolutely unsolvable. We cannot
Re: No MWI
2009/5/14 ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com: read Aixiv.org:0905.0624v1 (quant-ph) and see if you agree with it This part at the end, proposing an empirical method of distinguishing between MWI and single world interpretations and reminiscent of quantum suicide experiments, is interesting: Finally, suppose, notwithstanding all the arguments above, that we arrive at an Everettian theory that, while perhaps ad hoc and unattractive, is coherent – for example, some version of the many-minds interpretation[15]. It is generally believed that, without very advanced technology which allows the re-interference of macroscopically distinct branches, such a theory will necessarily be empirically indistinguishable from Copenhagen quantum theory. The following argument against this conclusion relies on anthropic reasoning and also on the hypothesis that species may evolve a consistent preference for or against higher population expectation over higher survival probability. An- thropic reasoning is notoriously tricky to justify, and we may anyway not necessarily have evolved demonstrable consistent preferences one way or the other, so the argument may not necessarily have practical application. Nonethe- less, it does show in principle that evolutionary evidence could make many-worlds theories more or less plausible. Consider a simple model of two species A and B, both of which begin with population P and are offered, each year, the option of doing something that depends on a quantum event and carries a 0.5 probability of extinction and a 0.5 probability of trebling the species population. Suppose that, if they reject the option, their population remains constant, as it does in between these decisions. Species A is risk-averse, and so always declines the option. Species B is risk-tolerant, and instinctively driven to maximise expected population, and so always accepts. Now let N be a large integer. After N years, if one-world quantum theory is correct, species A will have population P, and species B will have either population 0 (with probability (1−( 1 2 )N)) or population 3N (with probability ( 1 2 )N). In other words, species B will almost surely be extinct. If these are the only two species, and you are alive in the N-th year, almost certainly you belong to species A. If many-worlds quantum theory is correct, species A still has population P in all branches. Species B has population 0 in branches of total Born weight (1 − ( 1 2 )N), and population 3N in branches of total Born weight ( 1 2 )N. Now, if anthropic reasoning is justifiable here, and you are alive in the N-th year, almost certainly you belong to species B. (There are ( 3 2 )N times as many minds belonging to species B as to A after N years.) In other words, there is a sense in which long-run evolutionary success is defined by different measures in one-world and many-worlds quantum theory. If anthropic reasoning were justifiable, then one could in principle infer whether one-world or many-worlds quantum theory is likelier correct by seeing whether one belongs to a Born-weighted expected population maximising species or to a risk-averse species that seeks to maximise its Born-weighted survival probability. Readers may thus wish to consider whether their species has evolved a coherent strategy of either type. -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: logic mailing list
Hi Abram, On 24 Apr 2009, at 18:55, Abram Demski wrote: I'm starting a mailing list for logic, and I figured some people from here might be interested. http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic Interesting! Thanks for the link. But logic is full of mathematical mermaids and I am personally more problem driven. I may post some day an argument for logical pluralism (even a classical logical argument for logical pluralism!), though. Ah! but you can easily guess the nature of the argument ... I've looked around for a high-quality group that discusses these things, but I haven't really found one. The logic-oriented mailing lists I've seen are either closed to the public (being only for professional logicians, or only for a specific university), or abandoned, filled with spam, et cetera. But it is a very large domain, and a highly technical subject. It is not taught in all the universities. It is not a well known subject. Unlike quantum mechanics and theoretical computer science, the difficulty is in grasping what the subject is about. It take time to understand the difference between formal implication and deduction. I have problem to explain the difference between computation and description of computation ... So, I figured, why not try to start my own? Why not? Actually I have many questions in logic, but all are technical and long to explain. Some have been solved by Eric, who then raised new interesting question. Have you heard about the Curry Howard isomorphism? I have send posts on this list on the combinators, and one of the reason for that is that combinators can be used for explaining that CH correspondence which relates in an amazing way logic and computer science. Do you know Jean-Louis Krivine? A french logician who try to extend the CH (Curry Howard) isomorphism on classical logic and set theory. I am not entirely convinced by the details but I suspect something quite fundamental and important for the future of computer science and logic. You can take a look, some of its paper are in english. http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~krivine/ Jean-Louis Krivine wrote also my favorite book in set theory. The CH correspondence of the (classical) Pierce law as a comp look! Don't hesitate to send us link to anything relating computer science and logic (like the Curry-Howard isomorphism), because, although I doubt it can be used easily in our framework, in a direct way, it could have some impact in the future. Category theory is a very nice subject too, but is a bit technically demanding at the start. Yet, it makes possible to link knot theory, quantum computation, number theory, gravity, ... Not yet consciousness, though. Intensional free mathematics still resist ... In fact, I originally joined this list hoping for a logic-oriented mailing list. I haven't been entirely disappointed there, You are kind! but at the same time that isn't what this list is really intended for. Logic is a very interesting field. Too bad it is not so well known by the large public. The everything list is more theory of everything oriented. Logic has a big role to play, (assuming comp) but physics, cognitive science and even theology can hardly be avoided in a truly unifying quest ... And we try to be as less technic as possible, which is for me very hard, ... oscillating between UDA and AUDA. Best, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: logic mailing list
Bruno: could you tell in one sentence YOUR identification for logic? (I can read the dictionaries, Wiki, etc.) I always say :common sense, but what I am referring to is *-- -- M Y -- -- common sense, * distorted - OK, interpreted - according to my genetic built, my experience (sum of memories), instinctive/emotional traits and all the rest ab out what we have no idea today yet. I never studied 'formal' logic, because I wanted to start on my own (online mostly) and ALL started using signs not even reproducible on keyboards and not explained what they are standing for. As I guessed: the 'professors' issued notes at the beginning of the college-courses (($$s?)) and THERE the students could learn the 'vocabulary' of those signs. You also use some of them. I was looking at a dozen books as well and did not find those signes explained, not in footnotes, not in appendicis, not as intro- or post- chapters. They were just applied from page 1. So I gave up. John M On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi Abram, On 24 Apr 2009, at 18:55, Abram Demski wrote: I'm starting a mailing list for logic, and I figured some people from here might be interested. http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic Interesting! Thanks for the link. But logic is full of mathematical mermaids and I am personally more problem driven. I may post some day an argument for logical pluralism (even a classical logical argument for logical pluralism!), though. Ah! but you can easily guess the nature of the argument ... I've looked around for a high-quality group that discusses these things, but I haven't really found one. The logic-oriented mailing lists I've seen are either closed to the public (being only for professional logicians, or only for a specific university), or abandoned, filled with spam, et cetera. But it is a very large domain, and a highly technical subject. It is not taught in all the universities. It is not a well known subject. Unlike quantum mechanics and theoretical computer science, the difficulty is in grasping what the subject is about. It take time to understand the difference between formal implication and deduction. I have problem to explain the difference between computation and description of computation ... So, I figured, why not try to start my own? Why not? Actually I have many questions in logic, but all are technical and long to explain. Some have been solved by Eric, who then raised new interesting question. Have you heard about the Curry Howard isomorphism? I have send posts on this list on the combinators, and one of the reason for that is that combinators can be used for explaining that CH correspondence which relates in an amazing way logic and computer science. Do you know Jean-Louis Krivine? A french logician who try to extend the CH (Curry Howard) isomorphism on classical logic and set theory. I am not entirely convinced by the details but I suspect something quite fundamental and important for the future of computer science and logic. You can take a look, some of its paper are in english. http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~krivine/ Jean-Louis Krivine wrote also my favorite book in set theory. The CH correspondence of the (classical) Pierce law as a comp look! Don't hesitate to send us link to anything relating computer science and logic (like the Curry-Howard isomorphism), because, although I doubt it can be used easily in our framework, in a direct way, it could have some impact in the future. Category theory is a very nice subject too, but is a bit technically demanding at the start. Yet, it makes possible to link knot theory, quantum computation, number theory, gravity, ... Not yet consciousness, though. Intensional free mathematics still resist ... In fact, I originally joined this list hoping for a logic-oriented mailing list. I haven't been entirely disappointed there, You are kind! but at the same time that isn't what this list is really intended for. Logic is a very interesting field. Too bad it is not so well known by the large public. The everything list is more theory of everything oriented. Logic has a big role to play, (assuming comp) but physics, cognitive science and even theology can hardly be avoided in a truly unifying quest ... And we try to be as less technic as possible, which is for me very hard, ... oscillating between UDA and AUDA. Best, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
Re: logic mailing list
I was looking at a dozen books as well and did not find those signes explained, not in footnotes, not in appendicis, not as intro- or post- chapters. They were just applied from page 1. So I gave up. That's funny. I never had that experience. There *are* a great many signs to learn, but somehow I read all the books in the right order so that I know the simpler signs that the more complex signs were being explained with. :) --Abram On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 3:00 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Bruno: could you tell in one sentence YOUR identification for logic? (I can read the dictionaries, Wiki, etc.) I always say :common sense, but what I am referring to is -- -- M Y -- -- common sense, distorted - OK, interpreted - according to my genetic built, my experience (sum of memories), instinctive/emotional traits and all the rest ab out what we have no idea today yet. I never studied 'formal' logic, because I wanted to start on my own (online mostly) and ALL started using signs not even reproducible on keyboards and not explained what they are standing for. As I guessed: the 'professors' issued notes at the beginning of the college-courses (($$s?)) and THERE the students could learn the 'vocabulary' of those signs. You also use some of them. I was looking at a dozen books as well and did not find those signes explained, not in footnotes, not in appendicis, not as intro- or post- chapters. They were just applied from page 1. So I gave up. John M On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi Abram, On 24 Apr 2009, at 18:55, Abram Demski wrote: I'm starting a mailing list for logic, and I figured some people from here might be interested. http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic Interesting! Thanks for the link. But logic is full of mathematical mermaids and I am personally more problem driven. I may post some day an argument for logical pluralism (even a classical logical argument for logical pluralism!), though. Ah! but you can easily guess the nature of the argument ... I've looked around for a high-quality group that discusses these things, but I haven't really found one. The logic-oriented mailing lists I've seen are either closed to the public (being only for professional logicians, or only for a specific university), or abandoned, filled with spam, et cetera. But it is a very large domain, and a highly technical subject. It is not taught in all the universities. It is not a well known subject. Unlike quantum mechanics and theoretical computer science, the difficulty is in grasping what the subject is about. It take time to understand the difference between formal implication and deduction. I have problem to explain the difference between computation and description of computation ... So, I figured, why not try to start my own? Why not? Actually I have many questions in logic, but all are technical and long to explain. Some have been solved by Eric, who then raised new interesting question. Have you heard about the Curry Howard isomorphism? I have send posts on this list on the combinators, and one of the reason for that is that combinators can be used for explaining that CH correspondence which relates in an amazing way logic and computer science. Do you know Jean-Louis Krivine? A french logician who try to extend the CH (Curry Howard) isomorphism on classical logic and set theory. I am not entirely convinced by the details but I suspect something quite fundamental and important for the future of computer science and logic. You can take a look, some of its paper are in english. http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~krivine/ Jean-Louis Krivine wrote also my favorite book in set theory. The CH correspondence of the (classical) Pierce law as a comp look! Don't hesitate to send us link to anything relating computer science and logic (like the Curry-Howard isomorphism), because, although I doubt it can be used easily in our framework, in a direct way, it could have some impact in the future. Category theory is a very nice subject too, but is a bit technically demanding at the start. Yet, it makes possible to link knot theory, quantum computation, number theory, gravity, ... Not yet consciousness, though. Intensional free mathematics still resist ... In fact, I originally joined this list hoping for a logic-oriented mailing list. I haven't been entirely disappointed there, You are kind! but at the same time that isn't what this list is really intended for. Logic is a very interesting field. Too bad it is not so well known by the large public. The everything list is more theory of everything oriented. Logic has a big role to play, (assuming comp) but physics, cognitive science and even theology can hardly be avoided in a truly unifying quest ... And we try to be as less technic as possible, which is for me very hard, ... oscillating between
Re: logic mailing list
Bruno, I know just a little about the curry-howard isomorphism... I looked into it somewhat, because I was thinking about the possibility of representing programs as proof methods (so that a single run of the program would correspond to a proof about the relationship between the input and the output). But, it seems that the curry-howard relationship between programs and proofs is much different than what I was thinking of. In the end, I don't really see any *use* to the curry-howard isomorphism! Sure, the correspondence is interesting, but what can we do with it? Perhaps you can answer this. --Abram On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi Abram, On 24 Apr 2009, at 18:55, Abram Demski wrote: I'm starting a mailing list for logic, and I figured some people from here might be interested. http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic Interesting! Thanks for the link. But logic is full of mathematical mermaids and I am personally more problem driven. I may post some day an argument for logical pluralism (even a classical logical argument for logical pluralism!), though. Ah! but you can easily guess the nature of the argument ... I've looked around for a high-quality group that discusses these things, but I haven't really found one. The logic-oriented mailing lists I've seen are either closed to the public (being only for professional logicians, or only for a specific university), or abandoned, filled with spam, et cetera. But it is a very large domain, and a highly technical subject. It is not taught in all the universities. It is not a well known subject. Unlike quantum mechanics and theoretical computer science, the difficulty is in grasping what the subject is about. It take time to understand the difference between formal implication and deduction. I have problem to explain the difference between computation and description of computation ... So, I figured, why not try to start my own? Why not? Actually I have many questions in logic, but all are technical and long to explain. Some have been solved by Eric, who then raised new interesting question. Have you heard about the Curry Howard isomorphism? I have send posts on this list on the combinators, and one of the reason for that is that combinators can be used for explaining that CH correspondence which relates in an amazing way logic and computer science. Do you know Jean-Louis Krivine? A french logician who try to extend the CH (Curry Howard) isomorphism on classical logic and set theory. I am not entirely convinced by the details but I suspect something quite fundamental and important for the future of computer science and logic. You can take a look, some of its paper are in english. http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~krivine/ Jean-Louis Krivine wrote also my favorite book in set theory. The CH correspondence of the (classical) Pierce law as a comp look! Don't hesitate to send us link to anything relating computer science and logic (like the Curry-Howard isomorphism), because, although I doubt it can be used easily in our framework, in a direct way, it could have some impact in the future. Category theory is a very nice subject too, but is a bit technically demanding at the start. Yet, it makes possible to link knot theory, quantum computation, number theory, gravity, ... Not yet consciousness, though. Intensional free mathematics still resist ... In fact, I originally joined this list hoping for a logic-oriented mailing list. I haven't been entirely disappointed there, You are kind! but at the same time that isn't what this list is really intended for. Logic is a very interesting field. Too bad it is not so well known by the large public. The everything list is more theory of everything oriented. Logic has a big role to play, (assuming comp) but physics, cognitive science and even theology can hardly be avoided in a truly unifying quest ... And we try to be as less technic as possible, which is for me very hard, ... oscillating between UDA and AUDA. Best, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- Abram Demski http://dragonlogic-ai.blogspot.com/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness is information?
Kelly Harmon wrote: What if you used a lookup table for only a single neuron in a computer simulation of a brain? Hi Kelly Zombie arguments involving look up tables are faulty because look up tables are not closed systems. They require someone to fill them up. To resolve these arguments you need to include the creator of the look up table in the argument. (Inclusion can be across widely different time periods and spacial location) George --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
