Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 20-Jul-2019, at 5:24 AM, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > >> On 7/19/2019 3:14 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> Soul atoms are particularly fine and are distributed throughout the body, >> and it is by means of them that we have sensations and the experience of >> pain and pleas

Re: subjective experience

On 7/19/2019 2:02 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 7/19/2019 12:33 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: "I’m happy to be described as a monist. There aren’t multiple different kinds of things; *there is only the wave function of th

Re: Observation versus assumption

On 7/19/2019 3:14 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: Soul atoms are particularly fine and are distributed throughout the body, and it is by means of them that we have sensations and the experience of pain and pleasure. Body without soul atoms is unconscious and inert, and when the atoms of the body are

Re: Observation versus assumption

On 7/19/2019 9:00 AM, John Clark wrote: Turing Machinesare in a more fundamental category than the other two. All Van Neumann Machines and GPUsare Turing Machinesbut not all Turing Machinesare Van Neumann Machinesor GPUs. They are only Turing Machine if you define "Turing Machines" by what

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 5:21:04 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:14 PM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > >> Do you know of anything simpler that can make calculations than read a >>> square, erase what you read and then print either a 0 or a 1 on it >>> depending on your

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 3:14 PM Philip Thrift wrote: >> Do you know of anything simpler that can make calculations than read a >> square, erase what you read and then print either a 0 or a 1 on it >> depending on your state, then change into another state depending on what >> you read, then eithe

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 4:51:22 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 7/19/2019 3:18 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 3:52:05 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote: >> >> >> >> ... >> You insist that nobody has been able to produce a computer without using >> matter. I agree. What y

Re: Observation versus assumption

On 7/19/2019 4:49 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I share their perplexity. The idea of immaterialism is natural (and arises thousands of years ago), because the only thing that we cannot doubt (as Descartes pointed out) -- our consciousness -- is immaterial. There is not scientific instrument that

Re: Observation versus assumption

On 7/19/2019 3:18 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 3:52:05 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote: ... You insist that nobody has been able to produce a computer without using matter. I agree. What you refuse to consider is the possibility that matter is the dream of com

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 12:33:05 PM UTC-5, telmo wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019, at 16:01, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 4:52 AM Telmo Menezes > wrote: > > > > > *Nobody ever used the Turing Machine as an architecture for > computation,* > > > Everybody's architecture f

Re: subjective experience

On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 7/19/2019 12:33 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > "I’m happy to be described as a monist. There aren’t multiple different > kinds of things; *there is only the wave function of the universe*. As an > emergent approximation it’s us

Re: subjective experience

On 7/19/2019 12:33 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: "I’m happy to be described as a monist. There aren’t multiple different kinds of things; *there is only the wave function of the universe*. As an emergent approximation it’s useful to characterize the wave function as describing /multiple worlds/."

Re: subjective experience

On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 6:17:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > It is OK to be critical. I always welcome this. > Thank you. > But you are a bit short of argument. You seem convince by John Clark’s > posts. At least John Clark told us where in the reasoning he thinks ther

Debate intensifies over speed of expanding universe

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/debate-intensifies-over-speed-expanding-universe “It was the craziest conference I’ve been to,” said Daniel Scolnic, an astrophysicist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. “Everyone felt like they were on this rollercoaster.” A rollercoaster co

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 1:37:30 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > > Do you know of anything simpler that can make calculations than read a > square, erase what you read and then print either a 0 or a 1 on it > depending on your state, then change into another state depending on what > you re

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 1:33 PM Telmo Menezes wrote: > *How do you decide if something is a Turing Machine or not? * X is a Turing Machine if and only if for any given input to X there exists a Turing Machine that will produce the same output as X does with the same input. *> Is Domino a Turin

Re: Observation versus assumption

Ok philosophy head games. We come dancing back to Cartesian Dualism. This is not the way Rene DesCarte would've contanenced me doing this, but think that there are in this happy multiverse, or, awesomely big universe, diff sectors of matter. There! One emerged before the other. How might we prov

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 11:11:28 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 6:18 AM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > *> I've been perplexed for 50 years how the idea of immaterialism (that >> there is something other than matter) came to be.* > > > If matter (nouns) exist then someth

Re: Liquid Permanent Magnets

On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 11:18:22 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > Ferrofluids have been around since 1963 but have only a modest attraction > to an external magnetic field and loose all magnetism once the external > field is removed. In today's issue of the journal Science it is reported >

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019, at 16:01, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 4:52 AM Telmo Menezes wrote: >> __ > >> > ***Nobody ever used the Turing Machine as an architecture for computation,* > > Everybody's architecture for computation without exception can be reduced to > a Turing Machine

Liquid Permanent Magnets

Ferrofluids have been around since 1963 but have only a modest attraction to an external magnetic field and loose all magnetism once the external field is removed. In today's issue of the journal Science it is reported that for the first time a liquid has been found that is Ferromagnetic, that is t

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 6:18 AM Philip Thrift wrote: *> I've been perplexed for 50 years how the idea of immaterialism (that > there is something other than matter) came to be.* If matter (nouns) exist then something other than matter must exist too, namely the relationship between matter (adje

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 4:52 AM Telmo Menezes wrote: > > *Nobody ever used the Turing Machine as an architecture for computation,* > Everybody's architecture for computation without exception can be reduced to a Turing Machine and nobody has ever found anything simpler, aka more fundamental, tha

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 19 Jul 2019, at 15:04, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 7:51:04 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > Le ven. 19 juil. 2019 à 14:45, Philip Thrift > a écrit : > > > Well matter is bizarre enough on its own. > > Read the latest science news on new discoveries

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 7:51:04 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le ven. 19 juil. 2019 à 14:45, Philip Thrift > a écrit : > >> >> >> Well matter is bizarre enough on its own. >> >> Read the latest science news on new discoveries in *materials science.* >> >> I don't see why you wou

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 6:50:01 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote: > > Hi Philip, > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019, at 10:18, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 3:52:05 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote: > > > > ... > You insist that nobody has been able to produce a computer without using > matter. I

Re: Observation versus assumption

Le ven. 19 juil. 2019 à 14:45, Philip Thrift a écrit : > > > On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 6:31:53 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >> Le ven. 19 juil. 2019 à 13:02, Philip Thrift a >> écrit : >> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 5:50:11 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 6:31:53 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le ven. 19 juil. 2019 à 13:02, Philip Thrift > a écrit : > >> >> >> On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 5:50:11 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Le ven. 19 juil. 2019 à 12:18, Philip Thrift a >>> écrit : >>> >

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 6:28:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > ... > > By assuming the existence of (primary) Matter, you lose the possibility to > explain it, and you loss the mean to use the mechanist theory of mind, > without providing a conceptually clear non-mechanist theory of m

Re: Observation versus assumption

Hi Philip, On Fri, Jul 19, 2019, at 10:18, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 3:52:05 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote: >> >> >> ... >> You insist that nobody has been able to produce a computer without using >> matter. I agree. What you refuse to consider is the possibility that mat

Re: Observation versus assumption

Le ven. 19 juil. 2019 à 13:02, Philip Thrift a écrit : > > > On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 5:50:11 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >> Le ven. 19 juil. 2019 à 12:18, Philip Thrift a >> écrit : >> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 3:52:05 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote: ..

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 19 Jul 2019, at 13:02, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 5:50:11 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > Le ven. 19 juil. 2019 à 12:18, Philip Thrift > a écrit : > > > On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 3:52:05 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote: > > > ... > You insist that nobod

Re: subjective experience

Hi Dan, It is OK to be critical. I always welcome this. But you are a bit short of argument. You seem convince by John Clark’s posts. At least John Clark told us where in the reasoning he thinks there is a mistake, but has not yet been able to explain it, or convince anybody. So, if you unders

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 5:50:11 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le ven. 19 juil. 2019 à 12:18, Philip Thrift > a écrit : > >> >> >> On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 3:52:05 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> ... >>> You insist that nobody has been able to produce a computer without u

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 19 Jul 2019, at 12:18, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 3:52:05 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote: > > > ... > You insist that nobody has been able to produce a computer without using > matter. I agree. What you refuse to consider is the possibility that matter > is the dr

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 19 Jul 2019, at 10:51, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019, at 20:09, John Clark wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:31 AM Bruno Marchal > > wrote: >> >> >> A Turing Machine is compatible with both pure mathematics and pure >> >> physics, but Lam

Re: Observation versus assumption

Le ven. 19 juil. 2019 à 12:18, Philip Thrift a écrit : > > > On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 3:52:05 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote: >> >> >> >> ... >> You insist that nobody has been able to produce a computer without using >> matter. I agree. What you refuse to consider is the possibility that matter >> is

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Friday, July 19, 2019 at 3:52:05 AM UTC-5, telmo wrote: > > > > ... > You insist that nobody has been able to produce a computer without using > matter. I agree. What you refuse to consider is the possibility that matter > is the dream of computations, and not the other way around. Whatever

What a strange world this mailing list is...

...where the bullies use their real names while the bullied hide behind pseudonyms. -- 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.

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019, at 20:09, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:31 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>> >> A Turing Machine is compatible with both pure mathematics and pure >>> >> physics, but Lambda Calculus is compatible only with pure mathematics. >> >> *Why?* > > Ask Alonzo Chu

Re: subjective experience

> > On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 10:18:38 PM UTC-5, Dan Sonik wrote: >> >> Bravo PGC. Very Well Said. >> >> Delusions of reality as based in a purely mathematical scheme will never >> amount to a "theory of everything..." >> >> Just another quaint, historically bounded, and deeply ontologica

Re: subjective experience

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 10:18:38 PM UTC-5, Dan Sonik wrote: > > Bravo PGC. Very Well Said. > > Delusions of reality as based in a purely mathematical scheme will never > amount to a "theory of everything..." > > Just another quaint, historically bounded, and deeply ontologically > commi