Meh. The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with our
current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such 'tests'. It is
perfectly clear that the Eliza-like program here just has some bunch of
pre-prepared statements to regurgitate and the programmers have tried to
On 13 June 2014 01:21, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> I am on my Kindle so I cannot glom your post and plant it on this email,
> Liz, but I do know the psychology behind 'shaheed' martyrdom attacks. These
> buckaroos don't mind being consumed in such an
On 13 June 2014 15:00, meekerdb wrote:
> On 6/12/2014 7:05 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 13 June 2014 05:17, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> Sure it can. Just like Sherlock Holmes can live on Baker St. It's a
>> logical consequence of some axioms.
>>
>
> Try reading that out loud to yourself.
>
> Sounded be
On 13 June 2014 05:11, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 12 Jun 2014, at 00:30, LizR wrote:
>
> So a person would be a "garden of forking paths" laid out by deterministic
> physics, within which their conscious mind could move around (within
> limits). So the p-zombies are, so to speak, the materialist
On 6/12/2014 7:05 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 June 2014 05:17, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
Sure it can. Just like Sherlock Holmes can live on Baker St. It's a
logical
consequence of some axioms.
Try reading that out loud to yourself.
Sounded better than concluding that
On 6/12/2014 7:03 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 13 June 2014 02:42, meekerdb wrote:
Simply because you can give something you call a "basic accounting" of a
painting by specifying the placement of pigments on a canvas doesn't
preclude also describing it as a Monet of water lillies. You've chosen
On 13 June 2014 05:17, meekerdb wrote:
> On 6/12/2014 1:17 AM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 12 June 2014 15:09, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't go so far as to way it's "wrong", but I don't find it as
>> conclusive as he does. First, I think it's a category confusion to say
>> that "Ex(x+1 = 3)" prov
On 13 June 2014 02:42, meekerdb wrote:
> Simply because you can give something you call a "basic accounting" of a
> painting by specifying the placement of pigments on a canvas doesn't
> preclude also describing it as a Monet of water lillies. You've chosen a
> level and called it "basic" and th
On 13 June 2014 04:28, wrote:
> I am well aware of the two slit experiment. You can't send tronnies
> one-by-one anywhere. They exist in twosomes and threesomes as electrons,
> positrons or entrons. The entron is the energy-mass of each photon.
> Photons are self propelled by internal Coulomb
On 13 June 2014 03:50, wrote:
> Yes, light changes speeds many time as it passes through our Universe, but
> it is always traveling at the speed of light through the grid it is
> currently traveling through. There is no reason for it to become blurred.
> When light travels through a good prism
On 6/12/2014 5:42 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 13 June 2014 00:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2014 8:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That said, we might still at this stage wish to point out - and
indeed it might seem at first blush to be defensible - that such
fictions, or artefacts, could, at least i
On 12 June 2014 16:03, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Well, I guess that's my stab for now.
>
>
> Wow!
Thanks (I think) ;-)
David
--
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, s
On 13 June 2014 00:23, meekerdb wrote:
> On 6/12/2014 8:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> That said, we might still at this stage wish to point out - and
>> indeed it might seem at first blush to be defensible - that such
>> fictions, or artefacts, could, at least in principle, be redeemable in
>
On 6/12/2014 5:11 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 12 June 2014 04:09, meekerdb wrote:
Of course most physicists think the
mind/body problem is too ill defined a problem to tackle right now.
But this is Bruno's whole point and aim, isn't it? Given that the
whole subject area is indeed a quagmire of
On 12 June 2014 04:09, meekerdb wrote:
> Of course most physicists think the
> mind/body problem is too ill defined a problem to tackle right now.
But this is Bruno's whole point and aim, isn't it? Given that the
whole subject area is indeed a quagmire of confusion, he sets out his
stall to form
On 6/12/2014 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Further more, I'm not even sure that the reductionist program of looking for what's
most fundamental (in a TOE) and reifying it is the right way to look at things. It
leads to making strings or numbers, which we never experience, "real" and everything
On 6/12/2014 8:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That said, we might still at this stage wish to point out - and
indeed it might seem at first blush to be defensible - that such
fictions, or artefacts, could, at least in principle, be redeemable in
virtue of their evident epistemological undeniability.
On 6/12/2014 6:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Actually Grim and another guy studied version of Gödel and Löb theorem in fuzzy logic
(meaning that they use the closed interval [0, 1] has set of truth values. They
illustrate that the truth values of most fixed points in self-reference logic describe
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, wrote:
> If the TT has been watered down, then the first question for me would be
> "doesn't this logically pre-assume a set of explicit standards existed in
> the first place"?
>
My answer is "no". So am I a human or a computer?
> Has there ever been a robust s
On 12 Jun 2014, at 10:38, Kim Jones wrote:
On 12 Jun 2014, at 8:54 am, LizR wrote:
But when I asked my computer if it could manage that, it said "I'm
afraid I can't do that, Liz."
Also it refuses to open the front door, so I'm stuck in the garage.
"Open the pod bay doors, HAL..HAL
On 12 Jun 2014, at 13:39, Telmo Menezes wrote:
The inconceivable freedom is in your heart, but give time to time,
You are right and I'll shut up now :)
Please don't shut up!
As long as we stay polite the fun is in the conversation, ... in the
detours sometimes.
Thanks
I thank you,
On 12 Jun 2014, at 10:17, LizR wrote:
On 12 June 2014 15:09, meekerdb wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to way it's "wrong", but I don't find it as
conclusive as he does. First, I think it's a category confusion to
say that "Ex(x+1 = 3)" proves that 2 exists. The truth of
mathematical exi
On 12 Jun 2014, at 05:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/11/2014 5:53 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 June 2014 12:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/11/2014 5:31 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 1:27 AM, meekerdb
wrote:
On 6/11/2014 2:48 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
It's just a modal f
On 6/12/2014 1:17 AM, LizR wrote:
On 12 June 2014 15:09, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
I wouldn't go so far as to way it's "wrong", but I don't find it as
conclusive as he
does. First, I think it's a category confusion to say that "Ex(x+1 = 3)"
proves
that 2 exists
On 12 Jun 2014, at 00:30, LizR wrote:
On 12 June 2014 04:53, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Jun 2014, at 02:22, Russell Standish wrote:
As for mechanism? There won't be one, certainly not sharable
scientifically, anyway. Any number of arcane rituals or spells might
work, or might not. For me, I do
Yes, cycles absolutely can be broken, last things first, but first, people have
to see in themselves that something is wrong. This, we must conclude is fairly,
rare. The kind of people I am referring to, are the kind of people, that over
your dead body, get to heaven in a little green boat, as
Hynagogic it is. Though I'd like to see it used in a movie as a super villain
or hero. The Supreme Hypnogog challenges Dr. Strange! (the sorcerer supreme).
Sounds, gnarley to me.
I am not an expert, but you will find a lottle by searching on Hypnagogic.
-Original Message-
From:
My assumption is that our Universe with 100 to 400 billion galaxies exists
and that it is the result of a very long evolutionary process that began
with nothing,i.e. empty space.
I have demonstrated how electron, positrons and entrons can be made from
tronnies and how everything else in our Univer
On 12 Jun 2014, at 01:48, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 9, 2014 2:20:26 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
In the "Is Conscious Computable?" and "Suicide Words God and Ideas"
threads there is considerable overlap of discussion of "primitive
materialism". This is the place where the Neop
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> It [free will] is (simply) the will of a subject
>
I have no trouble understanding what "will" means, it's when "free" is
stuck in front of it that trouble arises.
> in a free (virtual or real) environment
>
According to your definition
Sorry I missed your post the first time. I responded a few minutes ago.
John R
> I send again this post, as it seems to not go through:
>
>
> On 07 Jun 2014, at 22:18, John Ross wrote:
>
>> I do not explain consciousness.
>
> OK. Fair enough. You are not searching to explain "everything".
> Unfor
I don't see how consciousness is important is describing how our Universe
was created and how it works. Our Universe existed for billions of years
before there was intelligent life to be conscious.
Quantum mechanics is ok so long as it is consistent with my model. My
theory includes an explanati
I know of no experimental evidence that proves that the neutron average
life inside nuclei is longer than 15 minutes. If you have some please
send it to me.
On the other hand, if the neutron decays inside the nuclei then the
negative charge of it electron can assist in holding the nuclei together
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > the randomness (in the sense of normal statistical testing) of that
> deterministic chaos has no other rôle in free-will than [...]
>
Before you start lecturing about what does and does not have a role in
"free will" you first must expla
I am well aware of the two slit experiment. You can't send tronnies
one-by-one anywhere. They exist in twosomes and threesomes as electrons,
positrons or entrons. The entron is the energy-mass of each photon.
Photons are self propelled by internal Coulomb forces of their entrons.
In the two-sl
On 11 Jun 2014, at 22:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/11/2014 1:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2014, at 19:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/10/2014 1:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 10 June 2014 16:52, meekerdb wrote:
Yeah that's pretty close, although I'd say consciousness just
occurs at a different le
Hi John,
On 11 Jun 2014, at 22:26, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno, I find it beyond my aging capabilities to respond in all
details to this long and diversed deluge of posts, also I have no
learned basis to evaluate YOUR profession with those 'squares' for p
etc.
No problem.
(btw HOW do
Correct, each major object carries its own Coulomb grid that move through
our Universe at the speed of the object. In between the major objects the
Coulomb grids are overlapping combinations. And we can have a Coulomb
grid within a Coulomb grid so light speed will be affected by both grids.
For
On 11 Jun 2014, at 18:16, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
The dream thing is intriguing because I am sometimes fascinated by
things my visual cortex kicks out, often, before sleep comes.
Hypnagogic images. It is frequent. It is not a REM state, but a state
which prefigures the deepen
On 11 Jun 2014, at 17:38, David Nyman wrote:
On 11 June 2014 00:43, meekerdb wrote:
... if we are tempted to see this as a sign that the search for
further
explanation is futile, we should first reflect whether we have hit
the
buffers of a particular explanatory strategy, rather than th
On 11 Jun 2014, at 16:40, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:39 PM, John Mikes wrote:
> Are 'angels' rational?
I don't know but I do know that God is real, unless declared an
integer.
Funny :)
It reminds me that the early greeks considered "infinity" as a
monstrosity, and god
On 10 Jun 2014, at 22:39, John Mikes wrote:
Irrational number?
Are 'angels' rational? if not you cannot count them anyway.
JM
Oops I miss this post, sorry John. (and thanks to Clark for reminding
it).
The answer is simple. In arithmetic, rational machines and rational
angels are a minor
On 11 Jun 2014, at 16:24, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> Free will is the ability to make choice,
And the ability to make a choice is the capacity to have free will
and round and round we go. Finding a synonym and finding out more
about how th
--
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 group, send email to everything-list@googlegrou
>
> The inconceivable freedom is in your heart, but give time to time,
>
You are right and I'll shut up now :)
Thanks
Telmo.
> it is not that easy when we are two, saying nothing about three and more.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything
> On 12 Jun 2014, at 8:54 am, LizR wrote:
>
> But when I asked my computer if it could manage that, it said "I'm afraid I
> can't do that, Liz."
>
> Also it refuses to open the front door, so I'm stuck in the garage.
"Open the pod bay doors, HAL..HAL - open the pod bay doors,
please.
On 12 June 2014 15:09, meekerdb wrote:
> I wouldn't go so far as to way it's "wrong", but I don't find it as
> conclusive as he does. First, I think it's a category confusion to say
> that "Ex(x+1 = 3)" proves that 2 exists. The truth of mathematical
> existence statements just implies that th
47 matches
Mail list logo
