On 24.08.2012 21:59 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Could you please tell me what an algorithm in a self-driving car is
responsible for intuition?
Any algorithm based on stochastics or heuristics, in other words most of
the algorithms in self-drivi
On 8/24/2012 11:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 8/24/2012 11:33 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2012 7:05 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
"...due to the law of conjugate bisimulation identity:
A ~ A = A ~ B ~ C ~ B ~ A = A ~ B ~ A
this is "retractable path independence": path indep
On 8/24/2012 11:33 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2012 7:05 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
"...due to the law of conjugate bisimulation identity:
A ~ A = A ~ B ~ C ~ B ~ A = A ~ B ~ A
this is "retractable path independence": path independence only over
retractable paths.
I don'
On 8/24/2012 12:19 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Aug 2012, at 03:21, Stephen P. King wrote:
Bruno does not seem to ever actually address this directly. It is
left as an "open problem"
The body problem?
I address this directly as I show how we have to translate the body
problem in a pure
Bruno, in reading your paper "Amoeba, Planaria, and Dreaming Machines" I find you have
written some of the functions explicitly in LISP. This nice since it is sometimes hard to
grasp the relatively abstract notions. But they use LISP functions that are not part of
the basic language (e.g. as d
On 8/24/2012 12:02 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As emulator (computing machine) Robinson Arithmetic can simulate
exactly Peano Arithmetic, even as a prover. So for example Robinson
arithmetic can prove that Peano arithmetic proves the consistency of
Robinson Arithmetic.
But you cannot conclude from
On 8/24/2012 7:05 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
"...due to the law of conjugate bisimulation identity:
A ~ A = A ~ B ~ C ~ B ~ A = A ~ B ~ A
this is "retractable path independence": path independence only over retractable paths.
I don't understand this. You write A~(B~A) whi
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 4:18 AM, benjayk wrote:
>
>
> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:11 AM, benjayk
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >>> So what is your definition of computer, and what is your
> >> >> >>> evidence/reasoning
> >> >> >>> tha
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> Could you please tell me what an algorithm in a self-driving car is
> responsible for intuition?
>
Any algorithm based on stochastics or heuristics, in other words most of
the algorithms in self-driving car software.
John K Clark
--
You received
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
> I did it for many reasons
>
And a cuckoo clock operates the way it does for many reasons.
> some of them my own.
>
In other words you have not divulged to others some of the reasons you
acted as you did, and no doubt some of the reasons you don't k
Dear Roger,
I tried to keep out from your 'everything' but now you address me and I do
not run away;
No, I am not a materialist and do not 'reject' god - I simply cannot find
that concept identifiable in my (present) world view. So I do not call
myself an 'atheist'.
Unfortunately with the other 'J
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Chalmers followed my talk on the UD Argument at ASSC 4 and leaved the room
> at step 3, saying that there is no indeterminacy as he will feel to be at
> both places.
>
Do you have a link to the discussion, or was it not on a public discussi
On 23.08.2012 21:33 John Clark said the following:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:01 PM, meekerdb wrote:
Do computers have intuition ?
Certainly. The self driving cars that the people at Google and others have
had so much success with lately wouldn't work without intuition; the car's
memory bank
On 8/24/2012 9:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote:
Quantum mechanics includes true subjective randomness already, so by your
own standards nothing that physically exists can be emulated.
That's QM+collapse, but the collapse is not well defined,
It is well d
On 24 Aug 2012, at 03:15, Richard Ruquist wrote:
My apologies. When Chalmers used the words "godelian argument" I
thought he was referring to Godel. Now I can see I misread it.
OK. be careful. That is why we have always to separate clearly a "pure
theory" from its application in some domai
On 24 Aug 2012, at 03:09, Jesse Mazer wrote:
What do you mean "the flaw for Godel"? There is no doubt that
Godel's mathematical proof is correct, and if you think Chalmers is
suggesting any such doubt in his paper you are misreading him.
I guess so. Chalmers can't be that bad.
Did Chalme
Chalmers followed my talk on the UD Argument at ASSC 4 and leaved the
room at step 3, saying that there is no indeterminacy as he will feel
to be at both places.
This made perhaps some sense in his dualist interpretation of Everett,
(if *that* makes sense), but makes no sense at all in comp
On 8/24/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And those theorem are non constructive, meaning that in the world of inference inductive
machine, a machine capable of being wrong is already non computably more powerful than
an error prone machine.
There's something wrong with that sentence. An erro
On 24 Aug 2012, at 00:28, Jason Resch wrote:
That reminded me of this:
I, Kerry Wendell Thornley, KSC, JFK Assassin, Bull Goose of Limbo,
Recreational Director of the Wilhelm Reich Athletic Club, Assistant
Philosopher, President of the Universal Successionist Association
(USA), Chairper
On 8/24/2012 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But normally the holographic principle should be extracted from comp before this can be
used as an argument here.
"Normally"?? The holographic principle was extracted from general relativity and the
Bekenstein bound. I don't know in what sense it "s
On 24 Aug 2012, at 02:17, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Honestly I do not find the Gödel theorem a limitation for computers.
Indeed, as Judson Webb showed the anti-mechanism argument based on
Gödel is double edged, when made precise enough it becomes a tool
making possible to the machine to ov
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Roger Clough wrote
> You can simply ignore the firewall between mind and matter,
> which is how materialism operates today. But you also ignore the
> fact that you have cancer. You can ignore whatever you like.
>
Ignore?? If you change the physical state of matt
On 23 Aug 2012, at 18:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Roger,
By Existence I mean all that is necessarily possible.
But necessary and possible are ultra fuzzy word. Aristotle invented
the modal logic to bring a bit of light, and, despite having been
mocked by logicians, modal logic app
Dear Roger,
I agree with what you are saying regarding the communion
concept, but I am interested in some kind of explanation for it that is
not just some appeal to authority.
On 8/24/2012 9:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
No, God communes with us (and the entire univers
On 23 Aug 2012, at 18:11, benjayk wrote:
Or how can you determine whether to program a particular program or
not? To
do this computationally you would need another program, but how do you
determine if this is the correct one?
You don't.
In theoretical inductive inference theory (Putnam, G
On 23 Aug 2012, at 16:52, Jason Resch wrote:
The holographic principle places a finite bound on the amount of
physical information that there can be in a fixed volume. This
implies there is a finite number of possible brain states and
infinite precision cannot be a requirement for the ope
On Thursday, August 23, 2012 4:53:10 PM UTC-4, John K Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 Craig Weinberg >wrote:
>
> > The laws of nature are such that they demand that we do things
>> intentionally. This means neither random nor completely determined
>> externally.
>>
>
> I see, you did it bu
On 23 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote:
Quantum mechanics includes true subjective randomness already, so by
your
own standards nothing that physically exists can be emulated.
That's QM+collapse, but the collapse is not well defined, and many
incompatible theories are proposed for it, an
On 23 Aug 2012, at 03:21, Stephen P. King wrote:
Bruno does not seem to ever actually address this directly. It is
left as an "open problem"
The body problem?
I address this directly as I show how we have to translate the body
problem in a pure problem of arithmetic, and that is why eve
On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote:
But this avoides my point that we can't imagine that levels, context
and
ambiguity don't exist, and this is why computational emulation does
not mean
that the emulation can substitute the original.
But here you do a confusion level as I think Jason
Stathis Papaioannou-2 wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:59 AM, benjayk
> wrote:
>
>> I am not sure that this is true. First, no one yet showed that nature can
>> be
>> described through a set of fixed laws. Judging from our experience, it
>> seems
>> all laws are necessarily incomplete.
>>
Hi Roger,
Then my friend is either blasphemous or the church has evolved since then.
Recent history of the church suggests that it evolves but rather
conservatively.
Richard
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> According to Aquinas. God IS intelligence.
Hi Richard Ruquist
According to Aquinas. God IS intelligence.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/24/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Tha`ts right IMHO. The believer par excelence is the one that don not
know that he believe, and do not know that there are parts of reality that
he reject. This is the primitive sense of religious belief. Medievals
believed this way, because nothing challenged his faith.
Men tend to reject uncer
Hi Stephen P. King
No, God communes with us (and the entire universe) and we also commune with him,
depending on our clarity of "vision" and intelligence, and perhaps desire,
don't know yet.
According to Lutheran orthodoxy (L was a Lutheran), God, since He causes all,
can
cause us to commune w
Stephan,
I find it interesting that according to my Roman Catholic professor
theologian friend,
God has intention but but intelligence. That would seem to be consistent
with what you say below. I'll have to ask him if the church came to that
viewpoint do to the " ordinary problem of solipsism".
Dear Roger,
I only see one glaring gap in your explanation here: the chain of
non-interaction leads all the way up to the supremum where God is
essentially and effectively (not)interacting with itself. Is this not
the very definition of Solipsism? How is the problem of solipsism not
even
Hi Stephen P. King
True, materials don't actually interact in Idealism, but the Supreme
intelligence
insures that the same result happens. In other words, you can't tell the
difference.
So at least in one place Leibniz says, "True, they don't actually interact,
because ideas as substances canno
Hi Quentin Anciaux
Indeed, you can allow for that happening by simply saying so,
and indeed in the real world what you say is true.
That's essentially the engineering approach, which really
isn't a scientific explanation, it's simply a fiat statement,
such as "Birds can fly because gravity does
Hi Jesse Mazer
I admire Penrose and what he is courageously trying to do
(pointing out the deficiiencies of materialism, although
he still protects himself by calling himself a humanist
and an atheist).
But both Penrose and Chalmers are still stuck with the
intractable cartesian mind/body dichot
Hi Roger,
The point is that there exist (provably!) statements that are
infinite and thus would require proofs that can effectively inspect
their infinite extent. We could argue that induction allows us to
shorten the length to a finite version but this does not cover all. For
instance, c
Hi Alberto G. Corona
I am a retired scientist, but I totally agree with you about
the social depredations that materialistic physics has created.
Apparently in the 17th century Descartes proposed a dualistic metaphysics
in which, despite the fact that they are entirely different
substances, min
Hi Richard Ruquist
I am in very deep water here, but IMHO
subjectivity is not a separate entity --
it is a dualistic activity requiring two parts:
subjectivity = subject + object
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/24/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so ever
Hi Stephen P. King
H. I guess I should have know this, but if there are unproveable
statements,
couldn't that also mean that the axioms needed to prove them have simply been
overlooked in inventorying (or constructing) the a priori ? If so, then
couldn't these
missing axioms be suggested
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:59 AM, benjayk
wrote:
> I am not sure that this is true. First, no one yet showed that nature can be
> described through a set of fixed laws. Judging from our experience, it seems
> all laws are necessarily incomplete.
> It is just dogma of some materialists that the uni
Hi Stephen P. King
I have heard similar ideas that quanta can be subjective,
but there is also an explanation for wave collapse
which does not involve consciousness, namely, that
intevention by a probe to examine the wave function
wlll most assuredly cause the delicate multiple solutions
to the
I´m also very heterodox with respect to physics. Although I have a degree
in Physics, or just because that, I understand that physics has exerted a
reductionist fascination that has ruined every social and human science,
including philosophy. Now it has been substituted by information theory,
compu
Hi Bruno Marchal
Could you explain a little about Bp & p duality ? Are they both
analytic, or does one of them us synthetic logic ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/24/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function."
- Receiving the fo
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:18 PM, benjayk
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>> >
>> >> Taking the universal dovetailer, it could really mean everything (or
>> >> nothing), just like the sentence "You can interpret whatever you want
>> >> into
>> >> this sentence..
Does the comp project use any synthetic logic ?
IMHO synlog is the basis of worldly intelligence.
.
Analytic logic can tell us nothing new, so cannot be a
basis alone for intelligence.
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/HUME.HTM
"Analytic and Synthetic
Analytic statements are a special cl
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:11 AM, benjayk
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Jason Resch-2 wrote:
>> >
>> >> >>> So what is your definition of computer, and what is your
>> >> >>> evidence/reasoning
>> >> >>> that you yourself are not contained in that definition?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >> T
Hi John Clark
The laws of nature don't prevent me from unintentionally having a car accident.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/24/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: John Clark
Hi John Clark
I am told that some of operations of those cars are graphically constructed.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/24/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: John Clark
R
Hi John Clark
You can simply ignore the firewall between mind and matter,
which is how materialism operates today. But you also ignore the
fact that you have cancer. You can ignore whatever you like.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/24/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have
54 matches
Mail list logo
