On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:09:40 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
> > "1. Do you consider yourself to have experienced the torture in the case
> of
> > the Restorers, even though you no longer remember it? If not, why not."
>
After proving Euler's identity during a lecture, Benjamin Peirce,
a noted American 19th-century philosopher, mathematician,
and professor at Harvard University, stated that
"it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
and we don't know what it means, but we have proved it,
and therefor
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
> Consider the following thought experiment, called "The Duplicators":
>
> At 1:00 PM tomorrow, you will be abducted by aliens. The aliens will tell
> you not to worry, that you won't be harmed but they wish to conduct some
> experiments on the
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> "1. Do you consider yourself to have experienced the torture in the case of
> the Restorers, even though you no longer remember it? If not, why not."
>
> Yes
>
>
> "2. If yes, do you consider yourself to have experienced the torture in the
On 2/12/2013 5:28 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:05:37AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
When we talk about a Bp, relating to consciousness is that we are making an
assumption about what a proposition is. In fact, if we look closely, a
proposition can only be another level o
On 2/12/2013 4:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 5:49:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/12/2013 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I don't know what sort of computer your typed you post on but by 1997
standards
it is almost certainly a supercomputer, pro
On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 8:28:24 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:05:37AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > When we talk about a Bp, relating to consciousness is that we are making
> an
> > assumption about what a proposition is. In fact, if we look closely,
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:05:37AM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> When we talk about a Bp, relating to consciousness is that we are making an
> assumption about what a proposition is. In fact, if we look closely, a
> proposition can only be another level of B. p is really nothing but a group
> o
"1. Do you consider yourself to have experienced the torture in the case of
the Restorers, even though you no longer remember it? If not, why not."
Yes
"2. If yes, do you consider yourself to have experienced the torture in the
case of the Duplicators? If yes, please explain, if not, please e
Consider the following thought experiment, called "The Duplicators":
At 1:00 PM tomorrow, you will be abducted by aliens. The aliens will tell
you not to worry, that you won't be harmed but they wish to conduct some
experiments on the subject of pain, which is unknown to them. These aliens
possess
On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 5:49:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 2/12/2013 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> I don't know what sort of computer your typed you post on but by 1997
>> standards it is almost certainly a supercomputer, probably the most
>> powerful supercomputer in the world.
On 2/12/2013 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I don't know what sort of computer your typed you post on but by 1997
standards it
is almost certainly a supercomputer, probably the most powerful
supercomputer in the
world. I'll wager it would take you less than five minutes to find and
Hi John,
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:53 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> >> So if Watson isn't intelligent he's something better than intelligent.
>>
>> > It is competent in jeopardy.
>>
>
> And the enormously impressive thing about Watson is that unlike Ch
When we talk about a Bp, relating to consciousness is that we are making an
assumption about what a proposition is. In fact, if we look closely, a
proposition can only be another level of B. p is really nothing but a group
of sub-personal Beliefs (logarithmically nested as B^n) which we are
arb
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> So if Watson isn't intelligent he's something better than intelligent.
>
> > It is competent in jeopardy.
>
And the enormously impressive thing about Watson is that unlike Chess
Jeopardy is not a specialized game, you could get asked about anything
On 11 Feb 2013, at 20:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2013 8:52 AM, John Clark wrote:
And you keep thinking there is such a thing as "THE" first person
view, and that might be a OK approximation in a world without
duplicating machines but not in a world that has them; there is
only A first
Euler Identity within a new quantum theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=_XZGOGvuBlI&feature=endscreen
==.
On Feb 12, 7:35 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net"
wrote:
> How to understand Vacuum: T=0K ?
> ==.
> Physics (classical + quantum) lives under shadow of Vacuum.
> I want throw light
On 11 Feb 2013, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/11/2013 8:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Feb 2013, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/10/2013 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Feb 2013, at 11:13, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Why? And why do you think science has made no progress since
On 11 Feb 2013, at 18:30, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote
> The Watson program is competent, but I doubt it makes sense to say
it is intelligent.
Just like with "God" and "atheist" it looks like we're back at the
tired old game of redefining wor
On 11 Feb 2013, at 17:52, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> If Bob is behind a door that will reveal Moscow and Bill is
behind a door that will reveal Washington then the probability that
Bob and Bill will open a door and see Moscow and Washingt
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, February 11, 2013 8:24:37 AM UTC-5, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Didn't think you did, as your statements mimic those of art critics who
>> can drop some big names but otherwise have little to do with the dai
On Feb 12, 8:41 am, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/11/2013 10:15 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
>
> > ' global conservation of energy can't even be defined for
> > the universe '
> > Brent
>
> > It means that global conservation of energy is infinite .
>
> No, it means it's undefined - there's no uniq
22 matches
Mail list logo
