Hi Folks,
I have been mulling over my conversations with Bruno, Joseph and
ACW in the EVERYTHING list and have a question. In SANE04 we read the
following:
For any given precise running computation associated to some inner
experience, you
can modify the device in such a way
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 4:31 PM, acw a...@lavabit.com wrote:
On 2/10/2012 14:01, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/9/2012 3:40 PM, acw wrote:
Another way to think of it would be in the terms of the Church Turing
Thesis, where you expect that a computation (in the Turing sense) to
have result
On 2/13/2012 9:16 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
RDR: Not sure if this is helpful, but a possible hypothetical
communications model is the 3D 10^90 per cc set Calabi-Yau Compact
Manifolds of string theory that are purported to control all physical
interactions as they each contain the laws of
On 13 February 2012 01:18, Joseph Knight joseph.9...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes it is, with the Movie Graph Argument. The MGA shows that assuming COMP,
consciousness cannot be explained by appealing to any physical system. Not
even a little.
Whereas I would concur with this conclusion, I realise on
On 2/13/2012 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:16 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
RDR: Not sure if this is helpful, but a possible hypothetical
communications model is the 3D 10^90 per cc set Calabi-Yau Compact
Manifolds of string theory that are purported to control all physical
Dear Bruno,
What limits are there on what can constitute the constant that
defines a particular model of a non-standard Arithmetic?
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
On Feb 12, 8:09 pm, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Craig,
Great post! Check this
out!http://newempiricism.blogspot.com/2009/02/symbol-grounding-problem.html
Onward!
Stephen
Thanks Stephen,
That's a great one. It does a better job saying what I'm trying to say
on
On Feb 12, 11:03 pm, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
patterns that emerge from the way the world
perturbs its boundaries
Yes, or as I call it...sense.
It need not be cognitive or higher animal, I think semantic grounding
is innate in all material systems as experiential qualia. We
On 2/13/2012 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:16 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
RDR: Not sure if this is helpful, but a possible hypothetical communications model is
the 3D 10^90 per cc set Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds of string theory
On 2/13/2012 11:48 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2012 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:16 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
RDR: Not sure if this is helpful, but a possible hypothetical
communications model is the 3D 10^90 per cc set
Stephan,
Thank you for your support and kind words. Actually you may be the first
learned person to actually read the paper. I sent it to Yau and to
Chalmers, but I doubt that they got beyond the Abstract. Now I need to
admit that I am neither expert in string theory or math logic. For example
I
On 2/13/2012 8:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 12, 8:09 pm, Stephen P. Kingstephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Craig,
Great post! Check this
out!http://newempiricism.blogspot.com/2009/02/symbol-grounding-problem.html
Onward!
Stephen
Thanks Stephen,
That's a great one. It does a
On 2/13/2012 8:54 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 11:48 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2012 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:16 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
RDR: Not sure if this is helpful, but a possible hypothetical
On 2/13/2012 12:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Stephen,
Thank you for your support and kind words. Actually you may be the
first learned person to actually read the paper. I sent it to Yau and
to Chalmers, but I doubt that they got beyond the Abstract. Now I need
to admit that I am neither
I think you should probably read Maudlin's
paperhttp://www.finney.org/~hal/maudlin.pdffor specifics. I don't
think thermodynamics will have much to do with the
conclusions, whatever they may be (and I don't think it's obvious what *exactly
*Maudlin showed).
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:21 AM,
On 2/13/2012 12:05 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2012 8:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 12, 8:09 pm, Stephen P. Kingstephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Craig,
Great post! Check this
out!http://newempiricism.blogspot.com/2009/02/symbol-grounding-problem.html
Onward!
Stephen
Thanks
On 2/13/2012 12:09 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2012 8:54 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 11:48 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2012 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:16 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
RDR: Not sure if this is helpful,
On 2/13/2012 9:17 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 12:05 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2012 8:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 12, 8:09 pm, Stephen P. Kingstephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Craig,
Great post! Check this
On 2/13/2012 9:18 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 12:09 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2012 8:54 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 11:48 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2012 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:16 AM, Richard
On 2/13/2012 12:11 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
I think you should probably read Maudlin's paper
http://www.finney.org/%7Ehal/maudlin.pdf for specifics. I don't
think thermodynamics will have much to do with the conclusions,
whatever they may be (and I don't think it's obvious what /exactly
On 2/13/2012 12:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:17 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 12:05 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2012 8:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 12, 8:09 pm, Stephen P. Kingstephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Craig,
Great post! Check this
On Feb 12, 12:34 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you are radically overestimating the size of the book and the
importance of the size to the experiment. ELIZA was about 20Kb.
TO HELL WITH ELIZA
On Feb 13, 12:29 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'm aware of that. It doesn't follow though that you must match every
interaction (e.g.
cross-section for cosmic gamma rays) or that every match is equally
important. I've
already speculated that a silicon based substitute might
On 2/13/2012 10:39 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 13, 12:29 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'm aware of that. It doesn't follow though that you must match every
interaction (e.g.
cross-section for cosmic gamma rays) or that every match is equally important.
I've
already
On Feb 13, 12:05 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It doesn't apply to us because we exist in an environment (where there are
spades and
soil). It doesn't apply to the Chinese room either, because there is a world
outside the
room in which Chinese is spoken and children are taught
On 2/13/2012 11:36 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 13, 12:05 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It doesn't apply to us because we exist in an environment (where there are
spades and
soil). It doesn't apply to the Chinese room either, because there is a world
outside the
room in which
On Feb 13, 2:04 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/13/2012 10:39 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 13, 12:29 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'm aware of that. It doesn't follow though that you must match every
interaction (e.g.
cross-section for cosmic gamma rays)
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:24 AM, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 13 February 2012 01:18, Joseph Knight joseph.9...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes it is, with the Movie Graph Argument. The MGA shows that assuming
COMP,
consciousness cannot be explained by appealing to any physical system.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 2/13/2012 12:11 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
I think you should probably read Maudlin's
paperhttp://www.finney.org/%7Ehal/maudlin.pdffor specifics. I don't think
thermodynamics will have much to do with the
On 2/13/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 13, 2:04 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/13/2012 10:39 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 13, 12:29 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.netwrote:
I'm aware of that. It doesn't follow though that you must match every
interaction
On 2/13/2012 3:43 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 2/13/2012 12:11 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
I think you should probably read Maudlin's paper
On 2/12/2012 15:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/11/2012 5:15 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/11/2012 05:49, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/9/2012 3:40 PM, acw wrote:
I think the idea of Platonia is closer to the fact that if a
sentence
has a truth-value, it will have that truth value, regardless if you
know
On 2/12/2012 17:29, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Folks,
I would like to bring the following to your attention. I think that we
do need to revisit this problem.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/19d/the_anthropic_trilemma/
The Anthropic Trilemma
http://lesswrong.com/lw/19d/the_anthropic_trilemma/
On Feb 13, 3:51 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Well humans aren't made of DNA, and there are good reasons they are made of
carbon
compounds (mostly) instead of silicon ones. But the question is about
consciousness, not
evolution.
I'm using DNA as an example that physical
On 2/13/2012 5:27 PM, acw wrote:
[SPK] There is a problem with this though b/c
it assumes that the field is pre-existing; it is the same as the block
universe idea that Andrew Soltau and others are wrestling with.
Why is a pre-existing field so troublesome? Seems like a similar
problem as the
On 2/13/2012 5:54 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/12/2012 17:29, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Folks,
I would like to bring the following to your attention. I think that we
do need to revisit this problem.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/19d/the_anthropic_trilemma/
The Anthropic Trilemma
On 2/14/2012 02:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 5:27 PM, acw wrote:
[SPK] There is a problem with this though b/c
it assumes that the field is pre-existing; it is the same as the block
universe idea that Andrew Soltau and others are wrestling with.
Why is a pre-existing field so
Lots of interesting ideas going about.
It sounds like you're pondering how many elements are in the set of all
world-lines consistent with the true laws of physics (e.g., possibly, the
least action principle). (Incidentally, that set oddly enough is timeless
yet the bundles of world-lines that
On 2/14/2012 03:00, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 5:54 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/12/2012 17:29, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Folks,
I would like to bring the following to your attention. I think that we
do need to revisit this problem.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/19d/the_anthropic_trilemma/
The
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
We've only changed the name from God's Will to
evolution/mechanism/probability
A good theory explains how something simple can produce something more
complex and is very explicit about the details. A bad theory
On 2/13/2012 11:18 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/14/2012 02:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 5:27 PM, acw wrote:
[SPK] There is a problem with this though b/c
it assumes that the field is pre-existing; it is the same as the
block
universe idea that Andrew Soltau and others are wrestling with.
On 2/13/2012 6:55 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 5:27 PM, acw wrote:
[SPK] There is a problem with this though b/c
it assumes that the field is pre-existing; it is the same as the block
universe idea that Andrew Soltau and others are wrestling with.
Why is a pre-existing field so
42 matches
Mail list logo
