Brent Meeker writes:
I don't have a clear idea in my mind of disembodied computation except in
rather simple cases,
like numbers and arithmetic. The number 5 exists as a Platonic ideal, and
it can also be implemented
so we can interact with it, as when there is a collection of 5
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 02:56:30PM -, David Nyman wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
If you can demonstrate this as a theorem, or even as a moderately
convincing argument why this should be so, I'd be most grateful for a
presentation. I'm all for eliminating unnecessary hypotheses.
Johnathan Corgan writes:
David Nyman wrote:
[re: QTI]
This has obvious
implications for retirement planning in general and avoidance of the
more egregious cul-de-sac situations. On the other hand, short of
outright lunacy vis-a-vis personal safety, it also seems to imply that
Brent meeker writes:
We would understand it in a third person sense but not in a first person
sense, except by analogy with our
own first person experience. Consciousness is the difference between what
can be known by observing an
entity and what can be known by being the entity,
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent meeker writes:
I don't recall anything about all computations implementing consciousness?
Brent Meeker
OK, this is the basis of our disagreement. I understood computationalism as
the idea that it is the
actual computation that gives rise to
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes:
After many life-expectancy-spans worth of narrow escapes, after
thousands or millions of years, wouldn't the probability be pretty high
for my personality/memory etc. to change so much that I wouldn't
recognize myself, or that I could be
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
I don't have a clear idea in my mind of disembodied computation except in
rather simple cases,
like numbers and arithmetic. The number 5 exists as a Platonic ideal, and it
can also be implemented
so we can interact with it, as when there is
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent meeker writes:
We would understand it in a third person sense but not in a first person
sense, except by analogy with our
own first person experience. Consciousness is the difference between what
can be known by observing an
entity and what can be known
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: Proof that QTI is false
Saibal Mitra wrote:
QTI in the way defined in this list contradicts quantum mechanics. The
observable
Yes, I agree that you could still have some form of QTI if there are only a
finite number of states. I just don't believe in it, because I don't think
the use of the relative measure is justified in case the observer isn't
conserved. In all other case the absolute measure and the relative measure
10 matches
Mail list logo
