On 24 Jun 2012, at 22:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/24/2012 10:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And then if I luckily succeed in computing the electron mass
9.10938291×10-31kg, Brent will tell me that we already knew
that, and ask for something else.
Well if you do it by luck... But of course
On 25 Jun 2012, at 01:08, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 01:29:31PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/24/2012 10:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And then if I luckily succeed in computing the electron mass
9.10938291×10^-31 kg, Brent will tell me that we already knew
that, and ask
Hello John,
On 24 Jun 2012, at 21:43, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
Doesn't it emerge in this respect WHAT truth? or rather
WHOSE truth? is there an accepted authority to verify an
absolute truth judgeable from a different belief system?
I don't think such authority exists. We can only agree
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The first person indeterminacy is a fact, with respect to comp.
First person indeterminacy is a fact with respect to ANYTHING, sometimes
you don't know what you're going to do till you do it. I find your
theoretical prediction of
On 25 Jun 2012, at 18:24, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The first person indeterminacy is a fact, with respect to comp.
First person indeterminacy is a fact with respect to ANYTHING,
sometimes you don't know what you're going to do till you
On 6/25/2012 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For the reasoning, we don't have to attribute two first person povs to one 3-viewed
machine, but to attribute one first person povs to two different 3-viewed machine, and
eventually number relations.
It looks like you want me to believe that the
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The question is do you agree with it, or not. So that we can move to step
4.
I've lost track, is step 3 the trivial observation that sometimes we don't
know what we're going to do, or was that step 2?
You ignore that we can test
On 6/25/2012 12:01 PM, John Clark wrote:
or to two identical (similar at the subst. level) machine put in different
environment,
If they were in different environments then the machines would not be identical or even
functionally identical and their associated minds would be
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:01 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The question is do you agree with it, or not. So that we can move to
step 4.
I've lost track, is step 3 the trivial observation that sometimes we don't
Hi,
Hales, C. G. 2012 The modern phlogiston: why 'thinking machines' don't need
computers TheConversation. The Conversation media Group.
http://www.theconversation.edu.au/the-modern-phlogiston-why-thinking-machines-dont-need-computers-7881
Cheers
Colin
P.S. I am done with this issue.
On 6/25/2012 3:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:01 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
The question is do you agree with it, or not.
On 6/25/2012 6:22 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
Hi,
Hales, C. G. 2012 The modern phlogiston: why 'thinking machines' don't need computers
TheConversation. The Conversation media Group.
http://www.theconversation.edu.au/the-modern-phlogiston-why-thinking-machines-dont-need-computers-7881
12 matches
Mail list logo
