On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, October 14, 2013 4:37:35 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 8:08:01 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Wed,
On Monday, October 14, 2013 4:37:35 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Craig Weinberg
>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 8:08:01 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10 October 2013
On Monday, October 14, 2013 6:18:17 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 15 October 2013 08:03, Craig Weinberg
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Monday, October 14, 2013 12:46:34 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14 Oct 2013, at 17:46, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>
>>> A first draft that I posted over the
On 15 October 2013 05:05, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> I understand that you don't think computers can have feelings, but I
>> was asking if if computers can perform all tasks that a human can
>> perform, or if there are some tasks they just won't be able to do. If
>> there are, then this suggests a
On 15 October 2013 08:03, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> On Monday, October 14, 2013 12:46:34 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14 Oct 2013, at 17:46, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>> A first draft that I posted over the weekend. *
>> *
>>
>> *I. Trailing Dovetail Argument (TDA)*
>>
>> *A. Computa
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 8:08:01 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>> On 10 October 2013 09:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>
It's not that computers can't do what humans do, it
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 10/14/2013 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 13 Oct 2013, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote:
>
> On 10/13/2013 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 12 Oct 2013, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote:
>
> On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
On Monday, October 14, 2013 3:17:06 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Oct 2013, at 20:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 13, 2013 5:03:45 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> All object are conscious?
>>
>
> No objects are conscious.
>
>
> We agree on this.
>
>
>
On 10/14/2013 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Oct 2013, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/13/2013 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Oct 2013, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Oct 2013, at 03:25, meekerdb wrote:
So there are infinitely many
On 14 Oct 2013, at 20:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2013 5:03:45 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
All object are conscious?
No objects are conscious.
We agree on this.
Not at all. It is here and now. I have already interview such
machines.
Are there any such
On Monday, October 14, 2013 12:46:34 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Oct 2013, at 17:46, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> A first draft that I posted over the weekend. *
> *
>
> *I. Trailing Dovetail Argument (TDA)*
>
> *A. Computationalism makes two ontological assumptions which have not
>
On Monday, October 14, 2013 12:13:42 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:
>
> Craig: beutiful. I saved it for my closer understanding (if...).
> One little intrusion though:
>
> *you write: the first copy of something should not be different from the
> 15,347,498th copy (figure arbitrary)*.
> My 'agnosticis
On Monday, October 14, 2013 12:13:43 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Oct 2013, at 17:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, October 13, 2013 5:05:46 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> > On 13 Oct 2013, at 06:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On Saturda
On Sunday, October 13, 2013 5:03:45 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 13 Oct 2013, at 06:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 12, 2013 12:27:08 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12 Oct 2013, at 09:49, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 12,
On Sunday, October 13, 2013 5:14:00 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On 13 October 2013 15:29, Craig Weinberg >
> wrote:
>
> >>> Perform to whose satisfaction? A cadaver can be made to twitch, or
> >>> propped up to stand.
> >>
> >>
> >> Perform to the satisfaction of anyone you care to nomina
On Sunday, October 13, 2013 11:26:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 13 Oct 2013, at 15:20, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 13, 2013 6:04:53 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13 Oct 2013, at 08:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>> Maybe this will help. Here are two cr
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 2:55 PM, John Mikes wrote:
> The so called *Peace Prize* (maybe the No.1 as added to Nobel's original
> list)
>
The Peace Prizewas in Nobel's will to be given to those who have "done the
most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or
reduction
On 14 Oct 2013, at 17:46, Craig Weinberg wrote:
A first draft that I posted over the weekend.
I. Trailing Dovetail Argument (TDA)
A. Computationalism makes two ontological assumptions which have not
been properly challenged:
The universality of recursive cardinality
Complexity driven nove
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> I agree that if that one bit of information that they both see is not
>> identical then the 2 men are no longer identical either and it becomes
>> justified to give them different names.
>>
>
> > Ok, so you then also have to agree that John
Craig: beutiful. I saved it for my closer understanding (if...).
One little intrusion though:
*you write: the first copy of something should not be different from the
15,347,498th copy (figure arbitrary)*.
My 'agnosticism' objects:
The first copy is restricted to the techniques applicable for cop
On 14 Oct 2013, at 17:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2013 5:05:46 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Oct 2013, at 06:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2013 3:54:29 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/12/2013 12:49 AM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Yes, but you se
On Sunday, October 13, 2013 5:58:03 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 04:25:50PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> > On 13 Oct 2013, at 12:24, Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> > >How do we know that those 3 hypostases exhaust the possibilities for
> > >logics contain
Telmo, entering sci-fi makes the discussion irrelevant.
what if... can e anything I want to show (I almost wrote: prove).
I am also against 'thought experiments' - designed to PROVE things unreal
(=not experienced in real life) - like e.g. the EPR etc., involving
'unfacts'.
By long back-and-forth p
A first draft that I posted over the weekend. *
*
*I. Trailing Dovetail Argument (TDA)*
*A. Computationalism makes two ontological assumptions which have not been
properly challenged:*
- *The universality of recursive cardinality*
- *Complexity driven novelty*.
Both of these, I intend
Right on, Brent!
*"**Emergence is a description of how we think about our models of the
world - not something in the world. So Bruno has a theory in which some
parts are true but incommunicable. He identifies these with qualia because
that is (supposedly) a characteristic of qualia. That's actu
On Sunday, October 13, 2013 5:05:46 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 13 Oct 2013, at 06:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, October 12, 2013 3:54:29 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 10/12/2013 12:49 AM, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>>
>> Yes, but you see, even the food we get from
On 14 Oct 2013, at 10:55, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno,
That explanation is very helpful.
Can I conclude that human beings
and perhaps all other kinds of beings,
are then arithmetic machines
that can participate in the hallucinations?
They can share a part of your hallucinations, yes. Reali
Dear John,
> in spite of my reluctance to spend time and energy on that nightmare of
> teleportation-related follies - (probably a result of too heavy dinners
> after which Q-physicists could not sleep/relax) - and with no intention to
> protect John Clark (a decent partner anyway) I may draw a th
Bruno,
That explanation is very helpful.
Can I conclude that human beings
and perhaps all other kinds of beings,
are then arithmetic machines
that can participate in the hallucinations?
Richard
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 13 Oct 2013, at 17:35, Richard Ruquist
On 14 Oct 2013, at 00:10, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Telmo Menezes
wrote:
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 6:58 PM, John Clark
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>
>> if you agree that each copy (the W-man, and the M-m
On 13 Oct 2013, at 23:58, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 04:25:50PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Oct 2013, at 12:24, Russell Standish wrote:
How do we know that those 3 hypostases exhaust the possibilities for
logics containing true but incommunicable sentences?
Who
On 13 Oct 2013, at 22:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/13/2013 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Oct 2013, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/12/2013 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Oct 2013, at 03:25, meekerdb wrote:
So there are infinitely many identical universes preceding a
measuremen
On 13 Oct 2013, at 20:14, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 6:58 PM, John Clark
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
if you agree that each copy (the W-man, and the M-man) get one bit
of
information,
I agree that if that one bit of information
On 13 Oct 2013, at 18:58, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
if you agree that each copy (the W-man, and the M-man) get one bit
of information,
I agree that if that one bit of information that they both see is
not identical then the 2 men are
On 13 Oct 2013, at 17:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno,
Even in my Metaverse String cosmology I can understand how from the
beginning of the Metaverse how its machine can generate all Lobian
numbers including arithmetic humans and aliens long before our
universe exists and evolves consci
35 matches
Mail list logo
