On 8/13/2012 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Aug 2012, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Roger,
I will interleave some remarks.
On 8/11/2012 7:37 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is analogous to
a musical score with God, or
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> On 13 Aug 2012, at 17:04, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> William,
>>
>> On 12 Aug 2012, at 18:01, William R. Buckley wrote:
>>
>>
>> The physical universe is purely
William,
I hope these might help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/M&PI_15-MAI-91.pdf
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publ
Please, a few foundational references on COMP that I
might follow the discussion on Google EverythingList.
wrb
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To uns
Bruno:
>From the perspective of semiotic theory, a subjective universe
seems rather obvious.
Consider that the Turing machine is computational omniscient
solely as a consequence of its construction, and yet, it can hardly
be said that the engineer who designed the Turing machine (why,
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Roger wrote:
> Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
>
> This is not going to make you computer folks happy, sorry.
>
> Life is whatever can experience its surroundings,
> nonlife cannot do so. That's the difference.
>
> Intelligence requires the ability to experience what it is sel
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 03:56:35PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 13 Aug 2012, at 00:32, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>
> OK. But the question is: would an agent lost free-will in case no
> random oracle is available?
I would have thought so.
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>I don't see why this
*Friends, Family, you have been warned! (muahahahhaha)
Faltam 5 comentários/ratings pra chegar lá pessoal!
Dear TED Talent Search Speakers,*
Your talks have been live now for a little over a month and since then,
there have been nearly 1,000,000 views, 6,000 comments, and 11,000 ratings!
While your
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Roger wrote:
> Life is whatever can experience its surroundings, nonlife cannot do so.
>
And if Intelligence is defined as what ever a computer can't do (yet) then
it's not surprising that as of this date Artificial Intelligence has not
achieved its goal. If a hu
On 8/13/2012 7:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The infinite tape is only a rather misleading pedagogical folklore. Example of universal
"number" are brain, computer, programming language interpreters, etc. Universal pattern
in the game of life are finite pattern. The infinite tape here is the infi
On 13 Aug 2012, at 17:55, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
When this cowboy has to write a score, there are always the
constraints of what client/audience expect; even if they expect
breaking a set of conventions.
But the actual writing, the 1p experience of it, is out of my
control. If I
When this cowboy has to write a score, there are always the constraints of
what client/audience expect; even if they expect breaking a set of
conventions.
But the actual writing, the 1p experience of it, is out of my control. If I
am afforded conditions to be allowed to be open for surprise, this
Hi Jason,
On 13 Aug 2012, at 17:04, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
William,
On 12 Aug 2012, at 18:01, William R. Buckley wrote:
The physical universe is purely subjective.
That follows from comp in a constructive way, that is, by giving the
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
> If you look at what I actually say [about free will] (page 167 of ToN),
> "It is the ability for a conscious entity to do somthing irrational". [...]
> Clearly the concept of rationality is also a can of worms
Yes indeed rationality and
Hi Roger,
"Natural life" and "natural/biological intelligence", although in a very
slow pace, have more than a bilion years of evolution. New forms of life
and intelligence are just in its beginning, but in a very very high
evolution speed due to a kind of men/machine/web symbiosis. Be patient...:
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> William,
>
> On 12 Aug 2012, at 18:01, William R. Buckley wrote:
>
>
> The physical universe is purely subjective.
>
>
> That follows from comp in a constructive way, that is, by giving the means
> to derive physics from a theory of sub
On 13 Aug 2012, at 06:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/12/2012 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let phi_i be an enumeration of the (partial) computable function.
u is universal if phi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y). (x,y) = some number
code for the couple (x, y)
So can y be some number code for a pair (a,b)
On 13 Aug 2012, at 00:32, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 04:24:22PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Aug 2012, at 11:45, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Aug 2012, at 09:45, Russell Standish wrote:
Nevertheles
Dear Stephen,
On 12 Aug 2012, at 20:15, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/12/2012 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Aug 2012, at 16:29, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Is it possible to say that compatibilism is equivalent to Leibniz'
pre-established harmony?
Thiscan be *one* interpretation of Le
On 12 Aug 2012, at 20:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Roger,
I will interleave some remarks.
On 8/11/2012 7:37 AM, Roger wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is analogous to
a musical score with God, or at least some super-intelligence, as
compos
On 12 Aug 2012, at 19:52, Brian Tenneson wrote:
This is already a consequence of computer science. All sound
machines looking inward, or doing self-reference, cannot avoid the
discovery between what they can justify with words, and what they
can intuit as truth.
What do justify and int
William,
On 12 Aug 2012, at 18:01, William R. Buckley wrote:
Roger:
Nothing in the universe is objective. Objectivity is an ideal.
When the physicist seeks to make some measure of the
physical universe, he or she necessarily must use some other
part of the physical universe by which to obtai
22 matches
Mail list logo
