Re: Open Individualism and Self Interest

Whoops, thanks for the correction On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 12:10:36 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 5/13/2014 9:39 PM, Dennis Ochei wrote: > > I think you'll enjoy what I uploaded. I definitely had a "Hey! I thought > of that" moment when I read it. > > > if this goes on forever, your $1 be

Re: Open Individualism and Self Interest

On 5/13/2014 9:39 PM, Dennis Ochei wrote: I think you'll enjoy what I uploaded. I definitely had a "Hey! I thought of that" moment when I read it. > if this goes on forever, your $1 becomes $1 x infinity, and the difference between that and $10 x infinity is, well, nothing! Would the number

Re: Open Individualism and Self Interest

I have often had these and similar thoughts myself. If reincarnation is true (and could be shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt) then the only rational course would be for people to be nice to one another, because they would only be being nice to themselves. (Especially if they have no way of k

Open Individualism and Self Interest

Under Daniel Kolak's open individualism there exists one numerically distinct person who is everyone at all times. What I want to explore is the implications of this theory for a self interested individual. For those unfamiliar with Open Indi

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

On 14 May 2014 13:29, meekerdb wrote: > On 5/13/2014 6:11 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 14 May 2014 11:15, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 5/13/2014 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 14 May 2014 06:29, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> On 5/12/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> Turing **emulation** is only mea

Re: Video of VCR

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:56:53 PM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:43:16 AM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Craig Weinbe

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

On 5/13/2014 6:11 PM, LizR wrote: On 14 May 2014 11:15, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/13/2014 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: On 14 May 2014 06:29, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/12/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Turing **emulation

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

On 14 May 2014 11:15, meekerdb wrote: > On 5/13/2014 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 14 May 2014 06:29, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 5/12/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> Turing **emulation** is only meaningful in the context of emulating one >> part relative to another part that is not emulat

Re: Video of VCR

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:43:16 AM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, May 12, 2014 1:50:45 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 12 May

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

On 5/13/2014 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: On 14 May 2014 06:29, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 5/12/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Turing **emulation** is only meaningful in the context of emulating one part relative to another part that is not emulated, i.e. is "real"

Re: TRONNIES

This is nuts as an explanation. You need to show what parts of physics you accept, and what parts you don't, and then explain how your constructed model prevents the alpha particle from blowing up. Or the proton, if that is simpler for you. As John Clark clearly explained, these configurations are

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

On 14 May 2014 07:21, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 12 May 2014, at 00:56, LizR wrote: > > On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> I think you could tell that the article was almost certainly >>> worthless from the title alone because it is asking the wrong question. >>> The

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

On 14 May 2014 06:29, meekerdb wrote: > On 5/12/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Turing **emulation** is only meaningful in the context of emulating one > part relative to another part that is not emulated, i.e. is "real". > > If you say so. We can still listen to the machine, and compare

Re: UDA videos, problems with Part 2 and part 3?

Links 2 and 3 appear to work OK for me. (I will be watching the whole thing at some point...) On 14 May 2014 03:27, Richard Ruquist wrote: > All 3 links worked for me. > Richard > > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Someone told me that he is unable to see

Re: Video of VCR

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:43:16 AM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > > > On Monday, May 12, 2014 1:50:45 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 May 2014, at 03:10, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > We don't know that. I

Re: TRONNIES

What is this "self-propelled" business? Galilean relativity (and Newtonian mechanics) indicate that there is no state of absolute rest - I know Newton mentions it in his first law but everything he goes on to show after that indicates that there is no such thing. Hence to say that something is "sel

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

On 12 May 2014, at 00:56, LizR wrote: On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> I think you could tell that the article was almost certainly worthless from the title alone because it is asking the wrong question. There is a vastly better question, Is Intelligence Computab

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: > Agree. Very odd to make the statement "Since lossy integration would > necessitate continuous damage to existing memories" appear to be so > controversial that it necessitates the move to a theory of lossless > integration. What could be more

Re: comptradiction?

On 13 May 2014, at 04:26, Pierz wrote: On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 3:39:21 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 May 2014, at 03:01, Pierz wrote: I've been following the "Is consciousness computable?" thread and it occurs to me that there may be a contradiction in the UDA. Step 6 introduce

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

On 5/12/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Turing *emulation* is only meaningful in the context of emulating one part relative to another part that is not emulated, i.e. is "real". If you say so. We can still listen to the machine, and compare with nature. When we compare with nature we find

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

On 13 May 2014, at 10:57, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 11, 2014 11:10:58 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 May 2014, at 10:51, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 11, 2014 8:46:41 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 May 2014, at 12:12, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, M

RE: TRONNIES

This would be a lot simpler if you would let me send you a copy of my book (free of course and autographed). Just let me know your mailing address. You can call and leave it in a message (858-646-5488). According to my model the proton is self-propelled by internal Coulomb forces to about 13 % o

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

On 13 May 2014, at 14:32, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:42:04 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 May 2014, at 20:10, meekerdb wrote: > How can you test the proposition that computation can instantiate > consciousness? By looking to our neighborhood close enough to s

Re: TRONNIES

John Ross wrote: > We know for sure that Coulomb forces exists. There are 4 fundamental forces in nature and the "Coulomb force" is not one of them, electrostatics is just a small part of electromagnetism, and the most boring part. > We can see it when we comb our hair. And we know that elect

Re: TRONNIES

On Sun, May 11, 2014 John Ross wrote: > I concluded that the basic charged particle had to be a point particle, > otherwise according to Coulomb’s Law it would blow itself apart. > The nucleus of a gold atom is certainly NOT a point particle and it has a electrical charge 79 times that of a el

Re: UDA videos, problems with Part 2 and part 3?

All 3 links worked for me. Richard On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Hi, > > Someone told me that he is unable to see the playlist entirely. He sees > only part 1, and not part 2 and 3, even with the following individual links: > > The playlist: > > http://www.youtube.com

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

On 5/13/2014 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The result of the computation does not change depending on when I started it, who started it and so on. Peter Jones would say that it does matter. There are diophantine equation which emulate you in our galaxy, but this will count for zero in the mea

UDA videos, problems with Part 2 and part 3?

Hi, Someone told me that he is unable to see the playlist entirely. He sees only part 1, and not part 2 and 3, even with the following individual links: The playlist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW2WWQylbwM&feature=youtu.be (from which part one is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW2WW

Re: Video of VCR

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Monday, May 12, 2014 1:50:45 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 12 May 2014, at 03:10, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> We don't know that. It could be the case that all detections used by the >> abstraction of the universal machin

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:42:04 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 12 May 2014, at 20:10, meekerdb wrote: > > > > How can you test the proposition that computation can instantiate > > consciousness? > > By looking to our neighborhood close enough to see if the physics > match well a

Re: TRONNIES

To be fair, "Bruno's theory" is more a logical argument which starts from the "standard materialist position" (consciousness being as at some level digitally emulable, something which Bruno is agnostic about the truth of) and shows the (rather surprising) consequences. It ends up with a physical th

Re: TRONNIES

On 13 May 2014 20:50, wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 12:38:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > >> On 13 May 2014 11:29, John Ross wrote: >> >>> I don’t believe I have claimed that my theory is “superior” to existing >>> theories or that it will “work better” or that it is an “explanatory >>> improv

Re: TRONNIES

Oh, OK, good point. (I don't mind too much because we move house every year or so!) But thanks, I will do so. On 13 May 2014 20:45, wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:47:48 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >> Thanks. >> >> It's >> >> Liz - you're better off sending this in private and deleting it h

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 11:10:58 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 11 May 2014, at 10:51, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Sunday, May 11, 2014 8:46:41 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 10 May 2014, at 12:12, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, LizR

Re: TRONNIES

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 12:38:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > On 13 May 2014 11:29, John Ross >wrote: > >> I don’t believe I have claimed that my theory is “superior” to existing >> theories or that it will “work better” or that it is an “explanatory >> improvement” over existing theories. >> >

Re: TRONNIES

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:47:48 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > Thanks. > > It's > > Liz - you're better off sending this in private and deleting it here. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop r

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

On 12 May 2014, at 20:10, meekerdb wrote: On 5/12/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 May 2014, at 21:13, meekerdb wrote: On 5/11/2014 12:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Yes, the rest follows, but the negation of the rest follows too, unless, like Peter Jones, you add a criterion of prim

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

On 12 May 2014, at 16:12, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 May 2014, at 12:12, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, LizR wrote: On 10 May 2014 17:30, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Saturday, May 10, 2014, LizR wro