Re: Human Thought Can Voluntarily Control Neurons in Brain

On 19 Oct 2013, at 08:20, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 10:55 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: A feeling, like a fear, is an evolved construct, needing brain and a long evolutionary history. I doubt that. If my paradigmatic AI Mars Rover responds to possible harm it forsees by diverting all powe

Re: For John Clark

On 19 Oct 2013, at 07:59, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 9:58 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Oct 2013, at 00:56, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 1:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:27 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 12:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Oct 17,

Re: For John Clark

On 10/18/2013 11:06 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Oct 2013, at 07:52, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 9:49 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Oct 2013, at 00:34, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM, meekerdb

Re: Human Thought Can Voluntarily Control Neurons in Brain

On 10/18/2013 10:55 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: A feeling, like a fear, is an evolved construct, needing brain and a long evolutionary history. I doubt that. If my paradigmatic AI Mars Rover responds to possible harm it forsees by diverting all power to locomotion, shutting off communications an

Re: For John Clark

On 19 Oct 2013, at 07:52, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 9:49 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Oct 2013, at 00:34, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 12:18 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Note: I do believe w

Re: For John Clark

On 10/18/2013 9:58 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Oct 2013, at 00:56, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 1:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:27 AM, meekerdb > wrote: On 10/18/2013 12:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote: *On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at

Re: Human Thought Can Voluntarily Control Neurons in Brain

On 19 Oct 2013, at 03:26, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, October 18, 2013 7:06:35 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Oct 2013, at 22:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, October 18, 2013 3:22:08 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Oct 2013, at 18:03, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Fr

Re: For John Clark

On 10/18/2013 9:49 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Oct 2013, at 00:34, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM, meekerdb > wrote: On 10/18/2013 12:18 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Note: I do believe we exper

Re: Seth Lloyd on Free Will

Nothing new here. I agree with Seyh Lloyd. Popper and others proposed this, and it is the explanation that I have constantly provided for free will on this list. It is the self-indeterminacy due to self- reference limitations. Careful to not confusing that self- indeterminacy (which relies on

Re: For John Clark

On 19 Oct 2013, at 01:09, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 1:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:37 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 12:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote: But that's not compatible with Bruno's idea of eliminating the physical - at least not unless he can solve

Re: For John Clark

On 19 Oct 2013, at 00:56, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 1:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:27 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 12:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:03 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/17/2013 6:04 PM, LizR wrote: On 18 October 20

Re: For John Clark

On 19 Oct 2013, at 00:34, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 12:18 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Note: I do believe we experience all possible outcomes, and you can even say in truth there is only one "I"

Seth Lloyd on Free Will

Seth Lloyd addresses the 'free will' question: Abstract: Before Alan Turing made his crucial contributions to the the ory of computation, he studied the question of whether quantum mechanics could t hrow light on the nature of free will. This article investigates the roles of quantum mechanics an

Re: Human Thought Can Voluntarily Control Neurons in Brain

On Friday, October 18, 2013 7:06:35 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 18 Oct 2013, at 22:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 18, 2013 3:22:08 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 18 Oct 2013, at 18:03, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, October 18, 2013 10:3

Re: Human Thought Can Voluntarily Control Neurons in Brain

On 18 Oct 2013, at 23:02, John Mikes wrote: Bruno: "what" is a person? (according to the US Supreme Court lately: a Corporation, but I don't buy that) You are right. Making a corporation into a person is a total shameful superdangerous idea (for our human rights). A person is an abstract

Re: For John Clark

On 18 Oct 2013, at 22:45, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:37 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 12:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote: But that's not compatible with Bruno's idea of eliminating the physical - at least not unless he can solve the basis problem. Could you do me a

Re: For John Clark

On 10/18/2013 1:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:37 AM, meekerdb > wrote: On 10/18/2013 12:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote: But that's not compatible with Bruno's idea of eliminating the physical - at least not unless he can

Re: Human Thought Can Voluntarily Control Neurons in Brain

On 18 Oct 2013, at 22:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, October 18, 2013 3:22:08 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Oct 2013, at 18:03, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, October 18, 2013 10:34:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Oct 2013, at 15:23, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >

Re: For John Clark

On 10/18/2013 1:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:27 AM, meekerdb > wrote: On 10/18/2013 12:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote: *On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:03 PM*, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 10/17/2013 6:04 PM,

Re: Human Thought Can Voluntarily Control Neurons in Brain

On 18 Oct 2013, at 21:44, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Of course we can see only one process, as we cannot feel the differentiation of the computations supporting us. Neither can computations feel us. Sure. Computations are not of the same type as pers

Re: For John Clark

On 18 Oct 2013, at 21:22, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 11:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The key result is that incompleteness makes the Theaetetus' definition of knowledge (the only one I know capable of doing justice to the metaphysical antic dream argument) given a classical theory of kn

Re: For John Clark

On 10/18/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM, meekerdb > wrote: On 10/18/2013 12:18 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Note: I do believe we experience all possible outcomes, and you can even say in truth there is only one "I"

Re: For John Clark

On 18 Oct 2013, at 20:41, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 11:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Oct 2013, at 18:55, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Oct 2013, at 01:23, meekerdb wrote: On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote: I see your reference and rai

Re: Human Thought Can Voluntarily Control Neurons in Brain

On Friday, October 18, 2013 5:02:26 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote: > > Bruno: "what" is a person? (according to the US Supreme Court lately: > a Corporation, but I don't buy that) > How can a Turing Machine EMULATE something different from it? > (I know very little about the T.M.: is it infinite?) > Y

Re: And the 2013 Nobel Prize in Physics goes to…

John, thanks for the info, useful, because not having ever run the danger of being assaulted by a Nobel Prize, I did not study their in depth history. HOWEVER: in my sentence I meant: the FIRST ONE when he made up his original listing ("in the ORIGINAL list"), not *later on added* 'as first additio

An old "White Rabbit" attempted solution - set to music

Greetings, I came here after reading and being intrigued by Russell Standish's book. I just thought I'd share one bit of fun before I go into lurker mode. It's a little ditty about Kant's philosophy. I remembered it after reading the book because it sounds very similar to some of the anthropi

Re: Human Thought Can Voluntarily Control Neurons in Brain

Bruno: "what" is a person? (according to the US Supreme Court lately: a Corporation, but I don't buy that) How can a Turing Machine EMULATE something different from it? (I know very little about the T.M.: is it infinite?) You wrote: ...*"we (our souls) are in touch with the infinite..."* Is a perso

Re: For John Clark

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:37 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/18/2013 12:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > >But that's not compatible with Bruno's idea of eliminating the >> physical - at least not unless he can solve the basis problem. >> >> > Could you do me a favor and explain what the basis probl

Re: For John Clark

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:27 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/18/2013 12:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > *On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:03 PM*, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 10/17/2013 6:04 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 18 October 2013 13:42, Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> The basis problem is no different fr

Re: For John Clark

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/18/2013 12:18 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > Note: I do believe we experience all possible outcomes, and you can even > say in truth there is only one "I" > > > In your theory a person is a chain of experiences, so different chain => > differ

Re: Human Thought Can Voluntarily Control Neurons in Brain

On Friday, October 18, 2013 3:22:08 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 18 Oct 2013, at 18:03, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Friday, October 18, 2013 10:34:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 18 Oct 2013, at 15:23, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> > On 18 October 2013 12:24, Cra

Re: Human Thought Can Voluntarily Control Neurons in Brain

On 10/18/2013 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Of course we can see only one process, as we cannot feel the differentiation of the computations supporting us. Neither can computations feel us. Sure. Computations are not of the same type as person. A computation cannot no more th

Re: Human Thought Can Voluntarily Control Neurons in Brain

On 18 Oct 2013, at 18:03, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, October 18, 2013 10:34:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Oct 2013, at 15:23, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 18 October 2013 12:24, Craig Weinberg > wrote: > >>> The decision to go to the store, A, is associated with certain

Re: For John Clark

On 10/18/2013 11:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The key result is that incompleteness makes the Theaetetus' definition of knowledge (the only one I know capable of doing justice to the metaphysical antic dream argument) given a classical theory of knowledge (S4Grz) which X1* is an important "physic

Re: For John Clark

On 18 Oct 2013, at 19:48, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/10/18 meekerdb On 10/18/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Oct 2013, at 01:23, meekerdb wrote: On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote: I see your reference and raise you a reference back to section 4.1 of http://arxiv.o

Re: For John Clark

2013/10/18 meekerdb > On 10/18/2013 10:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2013/10/18 meekerdb > >> On 10/18/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 18 Oct 2013, at 01:23, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> I see your reference and raise you a

Re: For John Clark

On 10/18/2013 11:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Oct 2013, at 18:55, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Oct 2013, at 01:23, meekerdb wrote: On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote: I see your reference and raise you a reference back to section 4.1

Re: For John Clark

On 10/18/2013 10:48 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/10/18 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> On 10/18/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Oct 2013, at 01:23, meekerdb wrote: On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote: I see your reference and raise you a ref

Re: For John Clark

On 18 Oct 2013, at 18:55, meekerdb wrote: On 10/18/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Oct 2013, at 01:23, meekerdb wrote: On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote: I see your reference and raise you a reference back to section 4.1 of http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312136 From t

Re: For John Clark

2013/10/18 meekerdb > On 10/18/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 18 Oct 2013, at 01:23, meekerdb wrote: > > On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > I see your reference and raise you a reference back to section 4.1 of >> >> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312136 >> > > From

Re: For John Clark

On 10/18/2013 12:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Oct 2013, at 01:23, meekerdb wrote: On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote: I see your reference and raise you a reference back to section 4.1 of http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312136 From the paper: "What of the crucial quest

Re: For John Clark

On 10/18/2013 12:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote: But that's not compatible with Bruno's idea of eliminating the physical - at least not unless he can solve the basis problem. Could you do me a favor and explain what the basis problem is in a way that a 6th grader could understand? I've

Re: Human Thought Can Voluntarily Control Neurons in Brain

On 18 Oct 2013, at 16:04, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, October 18, 2013 9:23:19 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 18 October 2013 12:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> The decision to go to the store, A, is associated with certain brain >> processes, and the getting in the car and driving to the

Re: For John Clark

On 10/18/2013 12:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote: *On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:03 PM*, meekerdb > wrote: On 10/17/2013 6:04 PM, LizR wrote: On 18 October 2013 13:42, Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: The basis problem is no different from

Re: For John Clark

On 10/18/2013 12:18 AM, Jason Resch wrote: Note: I do believe we experience all possible outcomes, and you can even say in truth there is only one "I" In your theory a person is a chain of experiences, so different chain => different person. It seems more accurate to say there is no "I". Br

Re: Human Thought Can Voluntarily Control Neurons in Brain

On Friday, October 18, 2013 10:34:14 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 18 Oct 2013, at 15:23, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 18 October 2013 12:24, Craig Weinberg > > > > wrote: > > > >>> The decision to go to the store, A, is associated with certain brain > >>> processes, and

Re: Human Thought Can Voluntarily Control Neurons in Brain

On 18 Oct 2013, at 15:23, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 18 October 2013 12:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: The decision to go to the store, A, is associated with certain brain processes, and the getting in the car and driving to the store, B, is associated with different brain processes. The

Re: Human Thought Can Voluntarily Control Neurons in Brain

On Friday, October 18, 2013 9:23:19 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > On 18 October 2013 12:24, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > >> The decision to go to the store, A, is associated with certain brain > >> processes, and the getting in the car and driving to the store, B, is > >> associated with dif

Re: Human Thought Can Voluntarily Control Neurons in Brain

On 18 October 2013 12:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> The decision to go to the store, A, is associated with certain brain >> processes, and the getting in the car and driving to the store, B, is >> associated with different brain processes. The brain processes >> associated with A *cause* the brain

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

On 17 Oct 2013, at 00:49, LizR wrote: By the way, my son (14) asked me the other day "what's the oddest prime number?" Fortunately, I got the right answer! I would say 2. LOL Was it 2 that you found? To be odd is very subjective here :) Bruno -- You received this message because yo

Re: For John Clark

On 18 Oct 2013, at 01:23, meekerdb wrote: On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote: I see your reference and raise you a reference back to section 4.1 of http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312136 From the paper: "What of the crucial question: should Alice1 feel uncertain? Why, Alice1 is a go

Re: For John Clark

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:27 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/17/2013 5:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:23 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 10/16/2013 11:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> I see your reference and raise you a reference back to section 4.1 of >>> >>> http://a

Re: For John Clark

*On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:03 PM*, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/17/2013 6:04 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 18 October 2013 13:42, Jason Resch wrote: > >> The basis problem is no different from the "present" problem under >> special relativity: If we exist in many times across space time, why do we >> fi

Re: For John Clark

On 18 Oct 2013, at 04:17, LizR wrote: On 18 October 2013 15:04, chris peck wrote: Immediately after teleportation there will be uncertainty because you are no longer sure of your location but are sure that you have been duplicated and sent to one place or the other. This gives room for

Re: For John Clark

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 9:04 PM, chris peck wrote: > Hi Jason > * > > >> Subject refers to the I, the indexical first-person. * > > The word 'I' is indexical, like 'now' and 'here'. The experience isn't > indexical, its just me. > > Right but when you refer to "the experience" or "chris peck's exp

Re: For John Clark

On 18 Oct 2013, at 04:04, chris peck wrote: Hi Jason >> Subject refers to the I, the indexical first-person. The word 'I' is indexical, like 'now' and 'here'. The experience isn't indexical, its just me. 'me' is also an indexical. Both the 3-me, and, more indirectly though, the 1-me.

Re: For John Clark

On 18 Oct 2013, at 04:48, chris peck wrote: >>The uncertainty is objective How can uncertainty be objective Bruno? By being (provably) the same for all possible experimenters. Examples: comp, QM. Uncertainty is a predicate applicable to experiences only. Yes, but it can be said obje