Re: A theory of dark matter...

On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 05:36:42PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Russell, > > Sorry, but you miss my argument. The 1:1 correspondence is between actual > or present moment time, not clock time. Please refer to my proximate > responses to Jesse for the details of the argument. > > Edgar > > T

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

For a trip of interstellar distance, the time dilation caused by getting into low earth orbit will be insignificant. Alice and Bob can compare their watches when Alice is in orbit, and see that they are still synchronised to high accuracy, at least as far as humans are concerned - there might be a

Re: Unput and Onput

On 2 February 2014 06:47, David Nyman wrote: > On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > If you don't see how my 'theory' automatically trumps any logical >> objection then you don't understand my theory fully. > > > That is truly hilarious Craig! I cannot help being reminded of Luther

Re: A theory of dark matter...

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > Consider another case: > > Consider every observer in the entire universe. Every one of them is > always currently in their own local actual time, their present moment. > Are you just asserting your presentist views, or are you

Re: A theory of dark matter...

The saga continues... [image: Inline images 1] -- 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

Re: Unput and Onput

It's because you don't listen, and then project that quality onto me. It's very common I've found. Not everyone is that way though. I have many productive conversations with people also. That would be hard to explain if it was my fault. On Saturday, February 1, 2014 10:28:38 PM UTC-5, David Nym

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 6:30:52 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 21:49, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> >> Found it! >> >> On Friday, January 31, 2014 11:45:24 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: >> >>> On 31 January 2014 01:52, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> >>> The "we" of individ

Re: Block Universes

On 2 February 2014 04:44, David Nyman wrote: > On 1 February 2014 07:05, LizR wrote: > > Everything we observe takes place in a manner that can be placed within a >> space-time continuum such that a "god's eye" view (or the relevant >> equations) would see it as static. But of course *we* don't

Re: Unput and Onput

Sorry Craig but I find you a simply impossible discussion partner. It doesn't seem to matter how directly and specifically one tries to put a point to you; you seem endlessly capable of deflecting, ignoring or just changing the subject. It's a real pity too that you seem convinced that all criticis

Re: Tegmark's new book

I will answer that if / when I have read it. On 2 February 2014 01:23, Ronald Held wrote: > Liz I should have typed which of the two diametrically opposed camps > has the most members in it. > > For another try I have read the following: > > > arXiv:0704.0646 [pdf, ps, other] > Title: The Math

Re: A theory of dark matter...

Jesse, Consider another case: Consider every observer in the entire universe. Every one of them is always currently in their own local actual time, their present moment. Now consider every last one of them all travel to meet up on earth. Every last one of them continually brings their own actu

Re: Unput and Onput

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 7:56:29 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 20:33, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:53:30 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: >> >>> On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> >>> I get around that with perceptu

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 2/1/2014 9:46 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen > wrote: > One might think it was the acceleration that slowed time on A's clock, BUT the point is that A's acceleration was only 1g throughout the entire trip which was

How to define finite

Maybe we can convert Bruno to Aristotelanism: https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/e.pdf Brent -- 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 ever

Re: A theory of dark matter...

Russell, Sorry, but you miss my argument. The 1:1 correspondence is between actual or present moment time, not clock time. Please refer to my proximate responses to Jesse for the details of the argument. Edgar On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:21:48 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sat,

Re: A theory of dark matter...

Jesse, You said "it was just a label" that seemed to imply otherwise, but I'm glad we agree it is an objective knowable fact that the twins meet in an ACTUAL same point in both time and space even with different clock times. That's what I've always exactly said the present moment was. By actua

Re: A theory of dark matter...

On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 03:46:37PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > c. Therefore during the trip there must always be a one to one > correspondence between those actual present moments even though the clock > times are not in synch. Because they both begin and end in that present > moment and never

Re: Unput and Onput

On 1 February 2014 20:33, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:53:30 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > >> On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> I get around that with perceptual relativity. When flying over a city, it >>> doesn't look like there are millions o

Re: A theory of dark matter...

Jesse, You already told us that the twins ARE at the same point in spacetime when they meet up again. Is that not an OBJECTIVE fact? Do we not actually KNOW that? The twins most certainly DO KNOW it because they can shake hands and look at each other's clocks at the same time. How can you clai

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 1 February 2014 21:49, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > Found it! > > On Friday, January 31, 2014 11:45:24 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > >> On 31 January 2014 01:52, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> The "we" of individual human beings relies on physical consistency >>> because that is a common sensory e

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:48:04 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 2 February 2014 08:41, Bruno Marchal > > wrote: > > >> There can be no zombies if consciousness is epiphenomenal. > > > > > > Just to be sure, I agree with that. > > > > I asked "why?" because I was thinking at the meta

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 2 February 2014 08:41, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> There can be no zombies if consciousness is epiphenomenal. > > > Just to be sure, I agree with that. > > I asked "why?" because I was thinking at the meta-level. > > The problem, is that if we can conceive that consciousness is epiphenomenal, > we

Re: A theory of dark matter...

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > PS: If coordinate time is just saying that when the twins meet up again > they are actually at the SAME point in spacetime, but we don't know (can't > agree) what clock time that corresponds to then I agree completely. > There is

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 2/1/2014 2:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Feb 2014, at 06:48, meekerdb wrote: On 1/31/2014 9:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: We are potentially immortal in the same way as a car can potentially survive indefinitely provided parts can be repaired or replaced indefinitely. At present, w

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 2/1/2014 2:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 1 February 2014 16:48, meekerdb wrote: On 1/31/2014 9:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: We are potentially immortal in the same way as a car can potentially survive indefinitely provided parts can be repaired or replaced indefinitely. At prese

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

Found it! On Friday, January 31, 2014 11:45:24 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 31 January 2014 01:52, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > The "we" of individual human beings relies on physical consistency because >> that is a common sensory experience of the animal>organism>substance >> context.

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

Stathis, I rereply a statement you made. On 31 Jan 2014, at 01:18, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 31 January 2014 04:19, Bruno Marchal wrote: I don't think there is a problem if consciousness is an epiphenomenon. Is it not that very idea which leads to the notion of zombie? If conscious

Re: A theory of dark matter...

Jesse, PS: If coordinate time is just saying that when the twins meet up again they are actually at the SAME point in spacetime, but we don't know (can't agree) what clock time that corresponds to then I agree completely. That is exactly what my theory says and what I've always said. I just ca

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

Hi Telmo, No, because I don't have to remember that my clock moved. I can actually OBSERVE it in the process of moving. That's one of many reasons block times including Bruno's don't make sense. I don't accept that QM indeterminacy is dependent on the existence of a human observer. That's sim

Re: A theory of dark matter...

Jesse, No, it's not just semantics. It's my definition of the present moment. You claim the present moment means something else, but then you don't even believe there IS a present moment which seems a little strange! But be that as it may. The example you give is just standard relativity theo

Re: Unput and Onput

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:53:30 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > I get around that with perceptual relativity. When flying over a city, it >> doesn't look like there are millions of conscious entities - not because >> their behavior

Re: A theory of dark matter...

On 01 Feb 2014, at 18:13, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Ghibbsa, Boy, you are really taking some giant leaps here! Just because I point out that a local present moment is obvious IN NO WAY is a claim that that insight is original with me! That's a crazy inference. The fact is that 99.999% of eve

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

Hi Edgar, > Block time and Bruno's comp can only tell us how a set fixed static sequence > of events could be perceived by some observer as a fixed static sequence of > events. It simply CANNOT tell us how time moves ALONG that sequence. > > The fact that time flows, that things change, is a funda

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

Bruno, A mathematical ordering is static and does NOT move. It is not a flowing time. Doesn't matter if you claim there is some 1p perspective that is a mathematical ordering. Unless some primitive time, such as my p-time, flows then nothing moves and you most certainly would NOT be posting you

Re: Unput and Onput

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:16:43 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 01 Feb 2014, at 13:13, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 1, 2014 4:54:47 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 31 Jan 2014, at 21:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, January 31, 2014

Re: Unput and Onput

On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg wrote: I get around that with perceptual relativity. When flying over a city, it > doesn't look like there are millions of conscious entities - not because > their behavior is limited to a set of rules, but because your vantage point > amplifies the insens

Re: A theory of dark matter...

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > Not correct. My present moment does NOT say "that there is an objective > common "present moment" for events that are *not* at the same point in > spaceTIME (my emphasis)." > > My theory says that there is a common universal presen

Re: Unput and Onput

On 01 Feb 2014, at 16:44, Craig Weinberg wrote: Only sense can allow theory to go beyond itself...in theory. Löbian machine can use their G*-G difference to go beyond itself, and perhaps generate sense, at their own risk and peril. But the sense will be mediated by the different points vi

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 01 Feb 2014, at 14:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, You have a very strange view of arithmetic if you think it "is full of processor cycles". It is the standard understanding of computer science. That is understood (by the theoricians) since Gödel 1931 (symbolically, as some have see

Re: Unput and Onput

On 01 Feb 2014, at 13:13, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, February 1, 2014 4:54:47 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Jan 2014, at 21:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:47:01 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Jan 2014, at 03:23, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Mayb

Re: Unput and Onput

On 01 Feb 2014, at 13:10, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:09:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Jan 2014, at 22:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, January 31, 2014 4:16:12 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 1 February 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Is there any

Re: Unput and Onput

On 1 February 2014 18:08, Craig Weinberg wrote: I don't expect anything and I'm not looking for anything. I'm explaining > why logic is theoretical representation rather than aesthetic presentation, > and that the distinction between the two is the key to solving the hard > problem of consciousne

Re: A theory of dark matter...

Jesse, Not correct. My present moment does NOT say "that there is an objective common "present moment" for events that are *not* at the same point in spaceTIME (my emphasis)." My theory says that there is a common universal present moment shared by all points in SPACE, not spaceTIME. Because c

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > then feel free to "invoke some non-comp" or invoke more "comp" if that > floats your boat, I no longer care. I've given up trying to find a > consistent definition of your silly little word "comp" that is used on this > list and nowhere else

Re: Unput and Onput

On 01 Feb 2014, at 14:31, David Nyman wrote: On 1 February 2014 09:54, Bruno Marchal wrote: My poor car followed the schroedinger equation without effort, but at a higher level, it tooks her a lot of effort to climb some steep roads. Well, she died through such effort, actually. RIP :-(

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

John, First, 2 substantial errors in your post below. 1. I stated that A began his trip from earth ORBIT, not from blasting off from earth's surface, so A's acceleration is 1g for the ENTIRE trip. But even if he blasted off from earth's surface at 2g that would have a negligible and irrelevant

Re: A theory of dark matter...

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > Yes, that "being at the same point in spacetime" is CALLED the present > moment that I'm talking about. > But your present moment goes beyond that and says that there is an objective common "present moment" for events that are *

Re: Unput and Onput

On 1 February 2014 18:14, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Eh, I've had formatting issues in the past when I try to respond through > Gmail. > Try using rich formatting and just interpolate your answers, snipping as necessary. It works really well for me. -- You received this message because you are su

Re: Unput and Onput

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:54:10 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > I must have lost the thread. This Google Groups format is always burying >> threads for me. If I can find it, I'll definitely reply. > > > I see you use gmail, like me

Re: Unput and Onput

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:47:31 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > If you don't see how my 'theory' automatically trumps any logical >> objection then you don't understand my theory fully. > > > That is truly hilarious Craig! I cannot

Re: A theory of dark matter...

Jesse, Perhaps i could understand better what you are saying if you could kindly explain in detail step by step a COORDINATE time analysis of how the twins start at the SAME point in spacetime and end up at the SAME point in spacetime but with different clock times. And please describe what th

Re: Unput and Onput

On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg wrote: I must have lost the thread. This Google Groups format is always burying > threads for me. If I can find it, I'll definitely reply. I see you use gmail, like me. Why don't you just filter messages from this group to a gmail folder? Then gmail mana

Re: A theory of dark matter...

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:13:29 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Ghibbsa, > > Boy, you are really taking some giant leaps here! > > Just because I point out that a local present moment is obvious IN NO WAY > is a claim that that insight is original with me! That's a crazy inference. > > The

Re: Unput and Onput

On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg wrote: If you don't see how my 'theory' automatically trumps any logical objection > then you don't understand my theory fully. That is truly hilarious Craig! I cannot help being reminded of Luther's admonition that "To be a Christian, you must pluck out

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > One might think it was the acceleration that slowed time on A's clock, > BUT the point is that A's acceleration was only 1g throughout the entire > trip which was exactly EQUAL to B's gravitational acceleration back on > earth. So if the acce

Re: A theory of dark matter...

You're so a joke... cannot doubt your own genius eh ! 2014-02-01 Edgar L. Owen : > Jesse, > > Yes, that "being at the same point in spacetime" is CALLED the present > moment that I'm talking about. > > You are probably repeating the claim that 'coordinate time' falsifies > p-time. It doesn't. Co

Re: A theory of dark matter...

Jesse, Yes, that "being at the same point in spacetime" is CALLED the present moment that I'm talking about. You are probably repeating the claim that 'coordinate time' falsifies p-time. It doesn't. Coordinate time is an attempt to explain the obvious problems with clock time not actually expl

Re: A theory of dark matter...

Ghibbsa, Boy, you are really taking some giant leaps here! Just because I point out that a local present moment is obvious IN NO WAY is a claim that that insight is original with me! That's a crazy inference. The fact is that 99.999% of everyone on earth throughout history has had the same ins

Re: Unput and Onput

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 11:32:03 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 15:44, Craig Weinberg > > wrote > > Neither comp nor any other TOE can consistently make reference to input or >>> output extrinsic to itself, >>> >> >> Unless, like mine, your TOE makes I/O (unified as

Re: A theory of dark matter...

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > > The fact that they can compare clocks, and agree for example that "twin > A's turning 30 coincides with twin B's turning 40", is because they are > making the comparison at the same point in spacetime (assuming ideal > point-like observers

Re: Unput and Onput

On 1 February 2014 15:44, Craig Weinberg wrote Neither comp nor any other TOE can consistently make reference to input or >> output extrinsic to itself, >> > > Unless, like mine, your TOE makes I/O (unified as a sensory-motive dipole > 'sense') the foundation of Everything. > So are you saying,

Re: A theory of dark matter...

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > And of course it is OBVIOUS that the twins share a common present moment > when they compare clocks. Otherwise they couldn't compare clocks now could > they? > The fact that they can compare clocks, and agree for example that "twin A's t

Re: A theory of dark matter...

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 3:53:06 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:00:16 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >> Ghibbsa, >> >> I'm wondering why you'd want to suddenly change the subject from time to >> a rather rambling post on epistemology? >> > > I don't

Re: A theory of dark matter...

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:00:16 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Ghibbsa, > > I'm wondering why you'd want to suddenly change the subject from time to a > rather rambling post on epistemology? > I don't see it as epistemology save in the most literal sense of the word with no baggage all

Re: Block Universes

On 1 February 2014 07:05, LizR wrote: Everything we observe takes place in a manner that can be placed within a > space-time continuum such that a "god's eye" view (or the relevant > equations) would see it as static. But of course *we* don't see it like > that. > > This appears to be the source

Re: Unput and Onput

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:54:12 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 12:13, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > No. The UD has no output. It is a non stopping program. "everything >>> physical and theological" appears through its intensional activity. >>> >> >> >> "Appears" = out

Re: A theory of dark matter...

Ghibbsa, I'm wondering why you'd want to suddenly change the subject from time to a rather rambling post on epistemology? Perhaps you were afraid you might be coming close to agreeing with me on a present moment and afraid of the public consequences of that here on this group? I agree you'd ha

Re: Unput and Onput

On 1 February 2014 12:13, Craig Weinberg wrote: No. The UD has no output. It is a non stopping program. "everything >> physical and theological" appears through its intensional activity. >> > > > "Appears" = output. > I think I see the confusion here. Remember that in comp, as in any TOE, we beg

Re: A theory of dark matter...

On Thursday, January 30, 2014 2:35:49 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Dear Ghibbsa, > > > Thanks for stepping in. And quite pleased to see you accept the obvious > fact that the twins DO share a common p-time present moment with different > clock times. > , There are major distinctions betwe

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

Bruno, You have a very strange view of arithmetic if you think it "is full of processor cycles". Can you explain how that works? It seems to imply an innate notion of time. Note that I agree with this, it's my p-time, but block universe and your block comp seem to be lacking it... PLease expl

Re: Unput and Onput

On 1 February 2014 09:54, Bruno Marchal wrote: My poor car followed the schroedinger equation without effort, but at a > higher level, it tooks her a lot of effort to climb some steep roads. Well, > she died through such effort, actually. > RIP :-( -- You received this message because you are

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

Liz, But see my responses to John and Brent on this .. The question I'd ask you is why "A's frame cannot be put into a single inertial frame of reference" if his 1g acceleration was exactly the same as B's 1g acceleration during the ENTIRE trip? Are you saying that the simple fact that the DIR

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

Brent, But see my response to John. How can that work since the accelerations are both = 1g throughout the entire trip? By the Principle of Equivalence shouldn't they have the same effect on time then? But if you say it's not the acceleration, but the distance through spacetime, then the dista

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

Hi John, One might think it was the acceleration that slowed time on A's clock, BUT the point is that A's acceleration was only 1g throughout the entire trip which was exactly EQUAL to B's gravitational acceleration back on earth. So if the accelerations were exactly equal during the entire tri

Re: Block Universes

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:05:34 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > There seems to be a bit of confusion about this idea. Some people on the > list seem to abhor the idea of a block universe, but when they attack the > concept, they invariably go for straw men, making statements like "change > ca

Tegmark's new book

Liz I should have typed which of the two diametrically opposed camps has the most members in it. For another try I have read the following: arXiv:0704.0646 [pdf, ps, other] Title: The Mathematical Universe Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT) arXiv:0707.2593 [pdf, ps, other] Title: Many lives in many wor

Re: Unput and Onput

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 4:54:47 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 31 Jan 2014, at 21:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:47:01 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 31 Jan 2014, at 03:23, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> > Maybe it will help to make the se

Re: Unput and Onput

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:09:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 31 Jan 2014, at 22:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 31, 2014 4:16:12 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >> On 1 February 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >>> > Is there any instance in which a computatio

Re: Unput and Onput

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:26:34 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 17:30, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> >> It's not an assumption, it is a question. I am asking, what good is >> computation without input/output and isn't the fact of i/o completely >> overlooked in the ontolo

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:15:26 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 13:22, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: >> >> On Friday, January 31, 2014 5:32:49 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >>> It emerges along the time axis. Evolution, for example, can operate in a >>> block universe. All the phen

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 01 Feb 2014, at 06:48, meekerdb wrote: On 1/31/2014 9:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: We are potentially immortal in the same way as a car can potentially survive indefinitely provided parts can be repaired or replaced indefinitely. At present, we can repair or replace some parts in the h

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 1 February 2014 16:48, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/31/2014 9:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > We are potentially immortal in the same way as a car can potentially > survive indefinitely provided parts can be repaired or replaced > indefinitely. At present, we can repair or replace some parts in

Re: Unput and Onput

On 31 Jan 2014, at 22:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, January 31, 2014 4:16:12 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 1 February 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Is there any instance in which a computation is employed in which no > program or data is input and from which no data is expected as

Re: Unput and Onput

On 31 Jan 2014, at 22:16, LizR wrote: On 1 February 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Is there any instance in which a computation is employed in which no > program or data is input and from which no data is expected as output? The UD. Isn't everything output from the UD? No, as I un

Re: Unput and Onput

On 31 Jan 2014, at 21:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:47:01 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 31 Jan 2014, at 03:23, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Maybe it will help to make the sense-primitive view clearer if we > think of sense and motive as input and output. > > This is

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

Actually, John Clark wrote... On 1 Feb 2014, at 8:34 pm, Kim Jones wrote: > > On 1 Feb 2014, at 8:24 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>> Your endless homemade acronyms that you pretend every educated person >>> should know get tiresome too. > > > Try Vitamin B 12. It is known to have a posit

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 1 Feb 2014, at 8:24 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Your endless homemade acronyms that you pretend every educated person should >> know get tiresome too. Try Vitamin B 12. It is known to have a positive effect on the mind's ability to accept new input. Failing that, you might give dandelion

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 31 Jan 2014, at 20:57, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> I don't need a proof because I have something better, I have direct experience of the subjective. > Nice for you. Indeed. > But that does not invalidate the point that you can't prove this to an

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 31 Jan 2014, at 20:24, David Nyman wrote: On 31 January 2014 18:30, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK. But you could also start by saying something like the POPJ assumes by default a primitively-physical basis). Especially that it is certainly arguable that comp does not solve it to our *ent

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 31 Jan 2014, at 19:27, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, I HAVE explained my computational space and how it relates to p- time. Here it is again copied from my post of Jan. 25 since you missed it. I did not miss it, but apparently you missed my comment on it. Bruno, Once again a summary

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 31 Jan 2014, at 14:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Telmo, Block time and Bruno's comp can only tell us how a set fixed static sequence of events could be perceived by some observer as a fixed static sequence of events. It simply CANNOT tell us how time moves ALONG that sequence. Correct. B

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 31 Jan 2014, at 13:13, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, Your mouth sure has to move a lot to tell us it's not moving! The problem is not that static equations DESCRIBE aspects of reality. The problem is that you are denying the flow of time. We deny a *primitive* and *ontological* flow of tim