On Jun 9, 11:17 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 08 Jun 2012, at 20:52, Nick Prince wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 8:45 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> Hi Nick,
>
> >> This is a bit unclear. How is U and D distinguished from the (absence
> >> of) first person view?
>
> > I've drawn the branches
On 6/9/2012 3:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Imagine that you decide to kill yourself with an atomic bomb, so as to maximize your
annihilation probability. Then it might be that your probability of surviving in a world
where you are just not deciding to kill yourself is bigger than surviving from s
On 6/9/2012 2:44 AM, Pierz wrote:
On Saturday, June 9, 2012 12:27:43 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
On 6/8/2012 7:02 PM, Pierz wrote:
I don't know, somehow this whole argument is not something I could take
seriously enough to get worked up over - too many what ifs piled up on other
what if
Bruno, Wei,
I've been reading the book "saving truth from paradox" on and off, and it
has convinced me of the importance of the "inside view" way of doing
foundations research as opposed to the "outside view".
At first, I simply understood Field to be referring to the language vs
meta-language di
On Jun 9, 12:08 pm, Pzomby wrote:
> > Thanks for your input. Some of what you state I follow, but some I do
> > not, but I set that aside.
>
> > To further clarify: The best analogy as to what I was considering is the
> > role of DNA in biological processes. DNA is coded by/with classified amino
On 09.06.2012 20:39 David Nyman said the following:
On 9 June 2012 19:22, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
No, I have meant
a) simulated computer
b) simulated myself (but not in a)
Now I consider a) and b). This is after all some instructions
executed by some Turing machine. It seems that there is no
On 09.06.2012 20:27 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
Le 9 juin 2012 20:22, "Evgenii Rudnyi" a écrit :
...
No, I have meant
a) simulated computer
b) simulated myself (but not in a)
Now I consider a) and b). This is after all some instructions
executed by
some Turing machine. It see
On 9 June 2012 19:22, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> No, I have meant
>
> a) simulated computer
>
> b) simulated myself (but not in a)
>
> Now I consider a) and b). This is after all some instructions executed by
> some Turing machine. It seems that there is no difference. How would you
> define the dif
Le 9 juin 2012 20:22, "Evgenii Rudnyi" a écrit :
>
> On 09.06.2012 20:00 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
>
>> 2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyi
>>
>>> On 09.06.2012 18:07 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
>>>
>>> 2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyi
On 09.06.2012 14:06 Quentin Anciaux said the follo
On 09.06.2012 20:00 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyi
On 09.06.2012 18:07 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyi
On 09.06.2012 14:06 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyi
On 09.06.2012 12:36 Bruno Marchal said the foll
2012/6/9 Quentin Anciaux
>
>
> 2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyi
>
>> On 09.06.2012 18:07 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
>>
>> 2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyi
>>>
>>> On 09.06.2012 14:06 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyi
>
> On 09.06.2012 12:36 Bruno Marchal
2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyi
> On 09.06.2012 18:07 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
>
> 2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyi
>>
>> On 09.06.2012 14:06 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
>>>
>>> 2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyi
>>>
On 09.06.2012 12:36 Bruno Marchal said the following:
>
>
>
On 09.06.2012 18:07 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyi
On 09.06.2012 14:06 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyi
On 09.06.2012 12:36 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 09 Jun 2012, at 08:39, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 08.06.2012 21:00 Pzomb
On Friday, June 8, 2012 1:36:31 PM UTC-7, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> On Jun 8, 3:00 pm, Pzomby wrote:
> > Using mathematics, computations and symbols; human embodied
> > consciousness can (using computers) create models, simulations,
> > emulations, depictions, replications, representations etc
2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyi
> On 09.06.2012 14:06 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
>
> 2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyi
>>
>> On 09.06.2012 12:36 Bruno Marchal said the following:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09 Jun 2012, at 08:39, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 08.06.2012 21:00 Pzomby said the following:
>>
On 09.06.2012 14:06 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyi
On 09.06.2012 12:36 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 09 Jun 2012, at 08:39, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 08.06.2012 21:00 Pzomby said the following:
Using mathematics, computations and symbols; human embodied
On 9 June 2012 11:17, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Such a backtracking (proposed once by Saibal Mitra on this list) can also be
> used to defend the idea that there is only one person, and that personal
> identity is a relative "illusory" notion. We might be a "God" playing a
> trick to himself, notabl
2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyi
> On 09.06.2012 12:36 Bruno Marchal said the following:
>
>
>> On 09 Jun 2012, at 08:39, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>>
>> On 08.06.2012 21:00 Pzomby said the following:
>>>
Using mathematics, computations and symbols; human embodied
consciousness can (using computers
On 09.06.2012 12:36 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 09 Jun 2012, at 08:39, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 08.06.2012 21:00 Pzomby said the following:
Using mathematics, computations and symbols; human embodied
consciousness can (using computers) create models, simulations,
emulations, depictio
On 09 Jun 2012, at 08:39, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 08.06.2012 21:00 Pzomby said the following:
Using mathematics, computations and symbols; human embodied
consciousness can (using computers) create models, simulations,
emulations, depictions, replications, representations etc. of
observations
On 08 Jun 2012, at 20:52, Nick Prince wrote:
On Jun 8, 8:45 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Nick,
This is a bit unclear. How is U and D distinguished from the (absence
of) first person view?
I've drawn the branches so that they represent a 3p viewpoint of
someone observing us over time - i.e
On Saturday, June 9, 2012 12:27:43 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
>
> On 6/8/2012 7:02 PM, Pierz wrote:
>
> I don't know, somehow this whole argument is not something I could take
> seriously enough to get worked up over - too many what ifs piled up on other
> what ifs. But I think I see a couple of
On 08 Jun 2012, at 19:30, Johnathan Corgan wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
This is a bit unclear. How is U and D distinguished from the
(absence of)
first person view?
I think this is actually the point--calculations of expected future
experiences based on
23 matches
Mail list logo
