Let me give an example: Free will.
That we can choose between alternative actions (and we can predict the
consequences for the good or evil of ourselves and others) has been ever
considered a fact. something evident. No greek philosopher, no oriental
philosopher, to my knowledge, considered free
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 27, 2013 8:00:11 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thursday, September 26, 2013 11:49:29 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes
Yes indeed, and it is compelling. Fading qualia and all that. It's the
absurdity of philosophical zombies. Those arguments did have an influence
on my thinking. On the other hand the idea that we *can* replicate all the
brain's outputs remains an article of faith. I remember that almost the
To propose tomorrow should be Fred Hoyle Day.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
If I might just butt in (said the barman)...
The more the merrier!
It seems to me that Craig's insistence that nothing is Turing emulable,
only the measurements are expresses a different ontological assumption from
the one that
On 29 Sep 2013, at 11:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I knew yesterday that the reason why Percival Lowel (and many
others) saw canals -and life- in Mars is because at this time the
Panama Canal was being constructed, and this novelty captivated the
imagination of the people. everithing
On 30 September 2013 22:00, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes indeed, and it is compelling. Fading qualia and all that. It's the
absurdity of philosophical zombies.
The absurd thing is not philosophical zombies, which are at least
conceivable, it is partial zombies.
Those arguments did have
Stathis
Could you provide the proof or a link to it?
Richard
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.comwrote:
On 30 September 2013 22:00, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes indeed, and it is compelling. Fading qualia and all that. It's the
absurdity of
On 29 Sep 2013, at 12:19, chris peck wrote:
Hi Bruno, and thanks for the reply.
Precisely: the expectation evaluation is asked to the person in
Helsinki, before the duplication is done, and it concerns where the
person asked will feel to be, from his first person point of view.
Not exactly. And that depends on what we call as science. Many called
sciences are pure rubbish, while some other disciplines outside of what is
now called science are much more interesting. I´, in favor of good science
and good philosophy. I consider good whatever knowledge endavour that is
not
On 30 Sep 2013, at 11:07 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
Stathis
Could you provide the proof or a link to it?
Richard
It's the Chalmers Fading Qualia paper cited before. The paper refers to
computer chips replacing neurons. The objection could be made that we do not
know
On Sunday, September 29, 2013 9:36:28 PM UTC-4, Pierz wrote:
If I might just butt in (said the barman)...
It seems to me that Craig's insistence that nothing is Turing emulable,
only the measurements are expresses a different ontological assumption
from the one that computationalists
The Leibniz difference: Me doesn't have an I, because me is a materialist.
An I is first person singular, me is third person singular.
I is a subject, me is an object.
I is part of mind, me is part of brain.
Opposite.
Big difference.
It doesn't take a genius to see the difference,
but
On 29 Sep 2013, at 19:38, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
And cause is a complex high level notion.
A cause is complex and at a high level only if the effect is complex
and at a high level. If Z is at the fundamental level (assuming
there
On 29 Sep 2013, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/29/2013 12:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As he knows in advance that he will feel, whoever he is, live only
one (again, from The 1-pov).
But that sentence is hard to parse. Whoever he is implies there
is only one he,
?
It implies there is
On Monday, September 30, 2013 8:00:11 AM UTC-4, Pierz wrote:
Yes indeed, and it is compelling. Fading qualia and all that. It's the
absurdity of philosophical zombies. Those arguments did have an influence
on my thinking. On the other hand the idea that we *can* replicate all the
brain's
On 9/28/2013 12:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have few doubt that 9/11 is an inside job, and the evidences are
rather big that this is the case,
How the hell did this thread turn into a showcase for looney conspiracy
theories? The level of logical rigor shown in this idea is similar to
On 29 Sep 2013, at 20:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/29/2013 4:05 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Yes. That naive uthopianism is quite recent in history. And it is
local to the western world, because it is a deformation of the
chirstian concept of salvation.
The Greeks thought they had declined
On 30 Sep 2013, at 03:17, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/29/2013 2:03 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
Citeren meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:
On 9/29/2013 6:26 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
...
Also, you can run the copy inside a virtual environment and then
the copies will never diverge.
?? I don't
Surely it should be today?
David
On 30 September 2013 13:05, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
To propose tomorrow should be Fred Hoyle Day.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
On 30 Sep 2013, at 02:58, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 07:33:08PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree that free-will is related to a lack of predictibity.
It is not related to any indeterminacy due to superposition or
duplication, as this only would only made the will
On 30 Sep 2013, at 03:36, Pierz wrote:
If I might just butt in (said the barman)...
It seems to me that Craig's insistence that nothing is Turing
emulable, only the measurements are expresses a different
ontological assumption from the one that computationalists take for
granted. It's
On 9/30/2013 2:02 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Let me give an example: Free will.
That we can choose between alternative actions (and we can predict the consequences for
the good or evil of ourselves and others) has been ever considered a fact. something
evident. No greek philosopher, no
On 9/30/2013 5:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Even under functionalist assumptions, I still find the Turing test to
be misguided because it require the machine to lie, while a human can
pass it by telling the truth.
Actually Turing already thought of this. If you read his paper you find that the
Brent: I stopped short (but violated this rule many times ) from arguing
against the fallacies included in the age-old 'religious' belief systems.
The reason: one irate response took me to task: who gave me superiority
over HIS (and other's) belief? He was hurt and I don't like to hurt
people.
Professor, Standish,
Speaking about Wolfram, some ten years ago, Wolfram opined that why listen for
ETI's when we can use computers to generate all we need to know about Alien
civilizations. I tried looking after what Dr. Wolfram meant. specifically,
when he said that, but to know avail.
On 9/30/2013 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Sep 2013, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/29/2013 12:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As he knows in advance that he will feel, whoever he is, live only one (again, from
The 1-pov).
But that sentence is hard to parse. Whoever he is implies there
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
A cause is complex and at a high level only if the effect is complex and
at a high level. If Z is at the fundamental level (assuming there really is
such a level and causes and effects aren't infinitely nested) then it's
On 9/30/2013 1:14 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent: I stopped short (but violated this rule many times ) from arguing against the
fallacies included in the age-old 'religious' belief systems. The reason: one irate
response took me to task: who gave me superiority over HIS (and other's) belief? He
Well, when I posted it was just after midnight on the 1st in New Zealand,
so I assumed it was still tomorrow for the rest of the world (and I assume
most people here aren't in NZ ... well, I know Bruno isn't!)
On 1 October 2013 04:52, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
Surely it should be
Yes, but by then surely it was already too late!
David
On 30 September 2013 22:58, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, when I posted it was just after midnight on the 1st in New Zealand, so
I assumed it was still tomorrow for the rest of the world (and I assume most
people here aren't in NZ
On 1 October 2013 11:08, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
Yes, but by then surely it was already too late!
Appropriately enough...
:-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
Hee hee. By the way, can't help noticing they're arguing about
pronouns again. Perhaps OTFITL is overdue for a re-read...
David
On 30 September 2013 23:11, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 October 2013 11:08, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
Yes, but by then surely it was already too
On 1 October 2013 08:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/30/2013 5:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Even under functionalist assumptions, I still find the Turing test to
be misguided because it require the machine to lie, while a human can
pass it by telling the truth.
Actually
Perhaps Wolfram was making reference to using automata, undergoing Darwinian
selection as a tool to emulate different alien entities based on say
environmental initial conditions. But somehow I get the sense that Wolfram was
smoking crack when he said that. By the way did anybody read through
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 04:22:13PM -0400, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Professor, Standish,
Speaking about Wolfram, some ten years ago, Wolfram opined that why listen
for ETI's when we can use computers to generate all we need to know about
Alien civilizations. I tried looking after what
On 1 October 2013 09:40, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Personal identity has nothing to do with prediction, and there is a 100%
probability the the Washington man and the Moscow man remember being the
Helsinki man, and that is all you need to know to say that the Helsinki man
had
37 matches
Mail list logo
