On 14 Feb 2014, at 20:43, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
both the W *and* the M guy are the H guy
Yes.
the question bear on probability of expectation for the H guy when
he press the button...
If that is the question
On 14 Feb 2014, at 17:03, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-14 16:49 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 21:12, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 21:05 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 19:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13
On 14 Feb 2014, at 17:11, David Nyman wrote:
On 14 February 2014 15:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
That is the origin of the white rabbits. if our brain is a universal
machine, we can can be failed, and are actually failed in infinities
of computations.
Do you mean fooled?
On 14 Feb 2014, at 18:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 20:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On
On 14 Feb 2014, at 21:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some definition of the abacus, it is Turing universal. With
others it is not.
The slide rules is not Turing universal. You can add and multiply
approximation of natural numbers only, or, if you want,
On 14 Feb 2014, at 21:32, LizR wrote:
On 15 February 2014 09:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/14/2014 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some definition of the abacus, it is Turing universal. With
others it is not.
The slide rules is not Turing universal. You can add and
On 15 Feb 2014, at 00:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 2:17 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 February 2014 10:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/14/2014 12:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 15 February 2014 09:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/14/2014 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some
On 14 Feb 2014, at 21:36, LizR wrote:
On 15 February 2014 08:47, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/14/2014 7:12 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Some members of the list have expressed fondness or interest for
cuttlefish, which is why I post this link:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 22:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 11:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 04:19, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 06:07:00PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 16:40, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 16:31 GMT+01:00 Bruno
On 14 Feb 2014, at 20:47, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 7:12 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Some members of the list have expressed fondness or interest for
cuttlefish, which is why I post this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgdVVU8tBTQ
The documentary is a bit sensational/over
On 14 Feb 2014, at 21:41, LizR wrote:
On 15 February 2014 07:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 01:38, LizR wrote:
On 14 February 2014 13:33, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:14:18PM +1300, LizR wrote:
It seems to me that
On 15 February 2014 23:15, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But Quentin might be right, like with Clark, sometimes you feel the people
will not change their mind, as they make typical opportunist remarks, which
distracts from the main point, and avoid the discussion. Do they act like
On 14 Feb 2014, at 23:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 1:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 1:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What's the definition of G*?
G* is a quite peculiar modal logic. It has as axioms all the
theorem of G, + the
On 15 Feb 2014, at 03:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 4:24 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 3:42 pm, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
What about the CMBR? When it was created there were (presumably)
no
observers in existence in the universe. Are you saying it
;)
From what I observed here, people in this list pass trough the following
phases:
1- enter with an apparently bright idea
2- is exposed to comp bombardment
3- comp seduction
4- comp dislike (really comp explains everything and nothing. That means
nothing)
5- comp aversion (too much comp, every
On 15 February 2014 10:25, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I wonder that. I generally assume people arguing on a forum like this
are rational (ish) and hence that they intend what they say and when they
keep avoiding questions it's because they don't want to answer them, and
when they're
On 15 Feb 2014, at 12:14, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
;)
From what I observed here, people in this list pass trough the
following phases:
1- enter with an apparently bright idea
2- is exposed to comp bombardment
3- comp seduction
4- comp dislike (really comp explains everything and nothing.
2014-02-15 10:01 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
I don't beg the question, I don't see a problem generating a virtual world
where F=ma does not hold true... that world exists in an infinity of
versions in the UD deployment as our own reality... You have no point
proving our own
On 15 February 2014 02:45, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If that is so (and I agree that it is, since I am not a physical
eliminativist) it is still consistent with the physical processes still
being *sufficient* to produce consciousness. It would only not be
sufficient if some
On 15 Feb 2014, at 12:58, David Nyman wrote:
On 15 February 2014 10:25, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I wonder that. I generally assume people arguing on a forum
like this are rational (ish) and hence that they intend what they
say and when they keep avoiding questions it's because
On 15 February 2014 13:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I have another theory of intelligence, which is that kids are intelligent
(= can change their mind and learn), and adults are stupid (= can no more
change their minds).
Yes, and indeed I have noticed that there is a great deal
On 15 February 2014 09:03, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
LizR: but WHO is the observer?
The one great advantage that Many Worlds has over other quantum
interpretations is that Everett doesn't need to answer that question.
That's the reason I like it.
John K Clark
--
You received
On 2/15/2014 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 18:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 20:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-13 11:52
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:49 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Einstein couldn't be classed as witless
He claimed atoms were the littlelest
When they did a bit of splittin' em
It scared everybody shitless.
A Quantum Mechanic's vacation
Left his colleagues in dire consternation
Though
On 2/15/2014 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You might keep in mind that astonishing truth (deducible from Matiyasevitch):
- The polynomial on the reals are not Turing universal (you cannot simulate an
exponential with such polynomials)
- the polynomial on the integers are Turing universal, you
Isn't quantum mechanics based on the reals?
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 12:20 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/15/2014 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You might keep in mind that astonishing truth (deducible from
Matiyasevitch):
- The polynomial on the reals are not Turing
On 2/15/2014 5:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And Sam Harris, in his reply to Dan Dennett in their recent debate on free will,
remarks that he's .. begun to doubt whether any smart person retains the ability to
change his mind.
I have another theory of intelligence, which is that kids are
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The 3-1 view is the 3p view on the 1p views, note the plural, after the
duplication.
That is far more convoluted than it need to be, it's really not all that
complicated. After the duplication both the Washington Man
On 15 Feb 2014, at 14:10, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-15 10:01 GMT+01:00 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
I don't beg the question, I don't see a problem generating a
virtual world where F=ma does not hold true... that world exists in
an infinity of versions in the UD deployment as
On Friday, February 14, 2014 9:45:34 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 13 February 2014 19:19, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:30:25 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 12 February 2014 23:47, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
I
On 15 Feb 2014, at 14:36, David Nyman wrote:
On 15 February 2014 13:17, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I have another theory of intelligence, which is that kids are
intelligent (= can change their mind and learn), and adults are
stupid (= can no more change their minds).
Yes,
To extend your metaphor, in my view, since the characters in a drama can
build an LCD screen as part of the show, but an LCD screen can't build a
show as part of its function, it makes more sense that the drama is
fundamental and that from an absolute perspective, it is the pixels which
are
On 15 Feb 2014, at 17:55, John Clark wrote:
On 15 February 2014 09:03, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
LizR: but WHO is the observer?
The one great advantage that Many Worlds has over other quantum
interpretations is that Everett doesn't need to answer that
question. That's the
On 15 Feb 2014, at 18:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/15/2014 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 18:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 1:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 20:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 3:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2014, at 12:07,
On 16 February 2014 06:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/15/2014 5:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And Sam Harris, in his reply to Dan Dennett in their recent debate on
free will, remarks that he's .. begun to doubt whether any smart person
retains the ability to change his mind.
On 16 February 2014 00:14, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
;)
From what I observed here, people in this list pass trough the following
phases:
1- enter with an apparently bright idea
2- is exposed to comp bombardment
3- comp seduction
4- comp dislike (really comp explains
On 16 February 2014 06:07, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:49 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Einstein couldn't be classed as witless
He claimed atoms were the littlelest
When they did a bit of splittin' em
It scared everybody shitless.
A Quantum
On 15 February 2014 18:41, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
To extend your metaphor, in my view, since the characters in a drama can
build an LCD screen as part of the show, but an LCD screen can't build a
show as part of its function, it makes more sense that the drama is
On 15 February 2014 18:32, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You can't copy awareness. Awareness is what is uncopyable, not just because
awareness is special, but because it is ontologically perpendicular to the
possibility of simulation. All attempts to copy awareness result in a
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:08:07AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 20:47, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 7:12 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
I find cuttlefish fascinating. They are social, relatively
intelligent, can communicate, able to grasp and manipulate things.
It
On 2/15/2014 2:17 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:08:07AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 20:47, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/14/2014 7:12 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
I find cuttlefish fascinating. They are social, relatively
intelligent, can
On 16 February 2014 09:35, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Limericks?
No, I just put a quote at the end of my post... Seems I can't do anything
without starting a trend.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this
On 15 February 2014 18:32, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You can't copy awareness. Awareness is what is uncopyable, not just
because awareness is special, but because it is ontologically perpendicular
to the possibility of simulation. All attempts to copy awareness result in
a
Living a long time (relatively) is something to do with the same stuff that
causes gout, I believe.
I also believe there are two reproductive strategies, and we've gone in for
the caring for the young version with a vengeance.
Apart from some blokes, of course...
On 16 February 2014 11:16,
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:43:29 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 15 February 2014 18:32, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You can't copy awareness. Awareness is what is uncopyable, not just
because awareness is special, but because it is ontologically
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 5:48:12 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 15 February 2014 18:32, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You can't copy awareness. Awareness is what is uncopyable, not just
because awareness is special, but because it is ontologically perpendicular
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com
Date: 15 February 2014 23:45
Subject: RE: Better Than the Chinese Room
To: Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
Can you give me a principled distinction between reproducing and copying?
David
Sent from my Windows
On 15 Feb 2014, at 10:58 pm, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 15 February 2014 10:25, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I wonder that. I generally assume people arguing on a forum like this
are rational (ish) and hence that they intend what they say and when they
keep
On 16 Feb 2014, at 7:09 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The best defense against becoming stuck with a wrong opinion is don't make
up your mind in the first place. However, this means accepting the burden
of acting under uncertainty.
Are you sure about that?
I'd be fairly certain
Reproducing (especially WRT self-reproduction) involves development:
executing a program that describes the thing being copied to create a copy
of that thing.
Whereas copying merely looks at the original object, and recreates
it. The program (if it can be called a program) doesn't contain any
On 14 Feb 2014, at 05:40, Russell Standish wrote:
thesis. This doesn't bother me - if you ever bothered to read my
thesis (not that I'm recommending you do so), you would find it
consists of two faily different topics, with only the most tenuous
connection between them.
Oopsa-daisy! All
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 09:30:52PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 05:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2014 8:40 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
I had a look at your SANE paper, which is the main paper where
you describe
your work that you published since your thesis. I can sort of
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 09:20:43AM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/15/2014 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You might keep in mind that astonishing truth (deducible from Matiyasevitch):
- The polynomial on the reals are not Turing universal (you cannot
simulate an exponential with such polynomials)
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 7:02:21 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Nyman david...@gmail.com javascript:
Date: 15 February 2014 23:45
Subject: RE: Better Than the Chinese Room
To: Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
Can you
On Friday, February 14, 2014 10:23:35 PM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote:
On 15 Feb 2014, at 1:09 pm, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:
wrote:
On 2/14/2014 4:24 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 3:42 pm, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript:
wrote:
What about
On 15 February 2014 20:14, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 15 February 2014 02:45, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If that is so (and I agree that it is, since I am not a physical
eliminativist) it is still consistent with the physical processes still
being
On 15 February 2014 20:14, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 15 February 2014 02:45, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If that is so (and I agree that it is, since I am not a physical
eliminativist) it is still consistent with the physical processes still
being
On 16 February 2014 01:41, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
To extend your metaphor, in my view, since the characters in a drama can
build an LCD screen as part of the show, but an LCD screen can't build a
show as part of its function, it makes more sense that the drama is
On 16 February 2014 01:32, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
No, the copy of the experience has no belief or experience at all. The
reflection of the fire doesn't burn anything.
Are you saying that the copy will be dead? A pathologist would examine
it and declare that it cannot
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:40:17 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 16 February 2014 01:41, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
To extend your metaphor, in my view, since the characters in a drama can
build an LCD screen as part of the show, but an LCD screen can't
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:49:56 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 16 February 2014 01:32, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
No, the copy of the experience has no belief or experience at all. The
reflection of the fire doesn't burn anything.
Are you saying that
On 16 Feb 2014, at 2:06 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2014 10:23:35 PM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote:
On 15 Feb 2014, at 1:09 pm, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/14/2014 4:24 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
On 14 Feb 2014, at 3:42 pm, Russell
62 matches
Mail list logo
