On 16 Feb 2012, at 18:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:54 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 15:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 6:57 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/15/2012 07:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
[SPK]
Interesting. How then do we explain the fact that humans suffer
all
kinds of
On 16 Feb 2012, at 20:09, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi ACW,
I understand the UDA, as I have read every one of Bruno's
English papers and participated in these discussions, at least. You
do not need to keep repeating the same lines. ;-)
The point is that the doctor assumption already
On 16 Feb 2012, at 20:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 10:16 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 17:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:54 AM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 15:59, Stephen P. King wrote:
There is a problem with this way of thinking in that it assumes
that all
of the
On 16 Feb 2012, at 21:53, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Are you talking about tautology?
true in no context whatsoever looks more like a contradiction (the
negation of a tautology).
Bruno
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:15 PM,
On 2/17/2012 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2012, at 16:57, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 4:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Feb 2012, at 08:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
By the way, Darwin's theory revolves around the notion of
evolution, that simpler objects can
On 2/17/2012 4:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2012, at 20:09, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi ACW,
I understand the UDA, as I have read every one of Bruno's English
papers and participated in these discussions, at least. You do not
need to keep repeating the same lines. ;-)
The
On 2/17/2012 5:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2012, at 21:53, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Are you talking about tautology?
true in no context whatsoever looks more like a contradiction (the
negation of a tautology).
Bruno
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Stephen P. King
On Jan 31, 8:53 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 31, 2:52 pm, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Craig,
The movie The Matrix is essentially about comp. What is it about that
movie's premise that seems impossible to you?
It's possible to simulate a world
On 2/17/2012 9:56 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Jan 31, 8:53 pm, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 31, 2:52 pm, Terren Suydamterren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Craig,
The movie The Matrix is essentially about comp. What is it about that
movie's premise that seems impossible to you?
It's
On 16 Feb 2012, at 23:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 1:00 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 20:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the possibility
that the brain can be
On 17 Feb 2012, at 00:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 3:02 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 22:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 1:00 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 20:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 2/17/2012 9:56 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Jan 31, 8:53 pm, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 31, 2:52 pm, Terren Suydamterren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Craig,
The movie The Matrix is essentially about
On 17 Feb 2012, at 00:02, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 22:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 1:00 PM, acw wrote:
On 2/16/2012 20:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 11:09 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
All of this substitution stuff is predicated upon the
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 a Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
if comp is true, no God is needed. It's just an arithmetic machine.
Even if it's not true God is STILL not needed, that is to say the God
hypothesis is of no help whatsoever in understanding anything; it makes no
attempt at
On 2/17/2012 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You forget that Quantum reality is Turing emulable.
A quantum computer can't compute a function that a TM can't. But when it comes to
emulating reality, it seems there is a difference because quantum reality may be
arbitrarily entangled (which is
I'm not sure who, the nested quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes
have defeated me, but somebody wrote:
Bruno has always said that COMP is a matter of theology (or religion),
that is, the provably unprovable,
Then insistence that COMP is untrue is just as religious as saying COMP
is
On 2/17/2012 8:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Note that Bruno answers the concern that interaction/entanglement with the environment
by saying that the correct level of substitution may include arbitrarily large parts of
the environment. I think this is problematic because the substitution (and
On 2/17/2012 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This does not follow from what you say above. On the contrary, if by chance or reason,
we build intelligent machine, we will have new opportunities to study consciousness
and its role in mind and matter.
I don't think it would ever be nice that
On 17 Feb 2012, at 06:53, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/17/2012 12:00 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 7:27 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 7:09 PM, acw wrote:
Do you understand at all the stuff about material and idea
monism that I
have mentioned previously? We are exploring the
On Feb 17, 12:57 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 a Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
if comp is true, no God is needed. It's just an arithmetic machine.
Even if it's not true God is STILL not needed, that is to say the God
hypothesis is of no help
On 17 Feb 2012, at 13:51, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/17/2012 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2012, at 16:57, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 4:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Feb 2012, at 08:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
By the way, Darwin's theory revolves around
On 17 Feb 2012, at 14:23, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/17/2012 4:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2012, at 20:09, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi ACW,
I understand the UDA, as I have read every one of Bruno's
English papers and participated in these discussions, at least.
You do
On 17 Feb 2012, at 18:57, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 a Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
if comp is true, no God is needed. It's just an arithmetic machine.
Even if it's not true God is STILL not needed, that is to say the
God hypothesis is of no help whatsoever in
On 17 Feb 2012, at 19:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/17/2012 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You forget that Quantum reality is Turing emulable.
A quantum computer can't compute a function that a TM can't. But
when it comes to emulating reality, it seems there is a difference
because quantum
On 17 Feb 2012, at 19:32, John Clark wrote:
I'm not sure who, the nested quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of
quotes have defeated me, but somebody wrote:
Bruno has always said that COMP is a matter of theology (or
religion), that is, the provably unprovable,
Then insistence that
On 17 Feb 2012, at 19:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/17/2012 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This does not follow from what you say above. On the contrary, if
by chance or reason, we build intelligent machine, we will have
new opportunities to study consciousness and its role in mind and
matter.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
How and why did evolution or physics or statistical laws come to be? How
is that really different from the God hypothesis?
Neither can explain why there is something rather than nothing, but the
Evolution theory can explain how
On 2/17/2012 2:24 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Feb 2012, at 13:51, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/17/2012 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2012, at 16:57, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 4:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Feb 2012, at 08:07, Stephen P. King wrote:
By
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You can argue that Nature has already bet on comp, when building brains,
and in that sense we use it implicitly,
You bet you can argue that!
but here comp is assumed.
It's assumed to be true every day of our lives by
On 2/17/2012 11:17 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 17, 12:57 pm, John Clarkjohnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 a Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
if comp is true, no God is needed. It's just an arithmetic machine.
Even if it's not true God is STILL not needed,
On 2/17/2012 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Feb 2012, at 18:57, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 a Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
if comp is true, no God is needed. It's just an arithmetic machine.
Even if it's not true God is
On 2/17/2012 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Feb 2012, at 19:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/17/2012 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You forget that Quantum reality is Turing emulable.
A quantum computer can't compute a function that a TM can't. But when it comes to
emulating reality, it
On Feb 17, 3:59 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
How and why did evolution or physics or statistical laws come to be? How
is that really different from the God hypothesis?
Neither can explain why there is something
On 2/17/2012 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Feb 2012, at 19:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/17/2012 9:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This does not follow from what you say above. On the contrary, if by chance or reason,
we build intelligent machine, we will have new opportunities to study
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I see you defend the conception of God given by the Christians.
By God I mean an omnipotent being that created all the matter and energy
in the universe, and logic and mathematics and morality and everything
else; when I want to talk
35 matches
Mail list logo
