Hi Russell Standish
ditto.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/28/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Russell Standish
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-27, 17:44:49
Subject: Re: The Princeton EGG
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
Hmm. But how would you know that the computer actually simulates the brain ?
That's been a problem for me. Being a retired experimental scientist, and
a pragmatist to boot, my approach to the whole problem would be to start with
digital implants or connections in rats,
Hi meekerdb
Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove
the solipsism puzzle ?
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/28/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Hi Bruno Marchal
Thanks for the clarification, I was wrong about 3p.
But according to Leibniz, 1p is always in God's eye,
but our personal pov is never undistorted or perfectly clear,
and operates down here, which is why I classified it as
being contingent.
[Roger Clough],
Hi Stephen P. King
More power to them, my only hesitation being that
so far nobody has been able to define what intelligence is.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/28/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From:
I wonder if it's merely intelligence that we should look for, but also
personality? The quality of being a person, having likes, and dislikes? That
may also be hard to define, at least for me, but it sounds like something Alan
Turing might approve of-at least for fooling the observer.
On 27 Dec 2012, at 20:13, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/27/2012 3:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Dec 2012, at 20:58, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/26/2012 1:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Dec 2012, at 19:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/24/2012 2:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We don't have to bet the
On 12/28/2012 4:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove
the solipsism puzzle ?
Everybody solves it by the scientific method: they observe other people, they create a
model in which other people are like themselves, they test the model
On 27 Dec 2012, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/27/2012 3:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This is intuitive and amenable to thought experience, like the
experience of the blind Mary which studies many books on color and
qualia and still has any clue what it is like to be a seeing person.
I
On 28 Dec 2012, at 01:38, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
wrote:
Three things that one cannot prove or disprove
1. That God exists or does not exist.
2. That I exist or do not exist.
3. That computers can be conscious or not.
Hi meekerdb
How do you know-- truly know-- that other
people are like yourself ? What proof can you offer ?
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/28/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver:
Hi Roger,
On 28 Dec 2012, at 13:53, Roger Clough wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, I was wrong about 3p.
But according to Leibniz, 1p is always in God's eye,
but our personal pov is never undistorted or perfectly clear,
and operates down here, which is why I classified it as
being
Stathis!!! (See after your remark) - John M
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:
It's possible to prove that computers can be conscious if it can be
proved that the physical movement of the parts of the brain can be
simulated by a computer.
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 5:41 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Stathis!!! (See after your remark) - John M
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
stath...@gmail.comwrote:
It's possible to prove that computers can be conscious if it can be
proved that the
On 12/28/2012 2:48 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Roger,
On 28 Dec 2012, at 13:53, Roger Clough wrote:
Thanks for the clarification, I was wrong about 3p.
But according to Leibniz, 1p is always in God's eye,
but our personal pov is never undistorted or perfectly clear,
and operates down here,
On 12/28/2012 1:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2012 4:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove
the solipsism puzzle ?
Everybody solves it by the scientific method: they observe other
people, they create a model in which other people are
On 12/28/2012 4:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/28/2012 1:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2012 4:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove
the solipsism puzzle ?
Everybody solves it by the scientific method: they observe other people,
On 12/28/2012 7:46 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2012 4:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/28/2012 1:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2012 4:45 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
Can you suggest a scientific method to prove or disprove
the solipsism puzzle ?
Everybody solves it by the
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
2p should be a necessary part of comp, espcially if it uses synthetic logic.
It doesn't seem to be needed for deductive logic, however.
The following equivalences should hold between comp
and Peirce's
19 matches
Mail list logo
