On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 8:02:40 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 18 February 2014 17:14, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Moreover, that very failure must be strikingly apparent to the functional
actors themselves.
Why do you think that isn't the pathetic
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:12:52 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 18/02/2014, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
The deficit is that it won't be alive. The parts won't integrate into a
whole. Every examination will yield only more levels of where the copy
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:36:31 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 February 2014 16:18, Stathis Papaioannou stat...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I'm making a case for reductionism. If biochemistry necessarily leads to
consciousness then I don't think this is any different to the
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:28:18 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 February 2014 14:17, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You're talking about the special case of human experience, human bodies,
etc. I'm talking about the ontology of the nature of any possible
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:46:40 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Feb 2014, at 17:18, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 18/02/2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
I think if I say consciousness is an epiphenomenon of biochemistry I
should also say that life is.
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:45:19 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
*From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:
everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of
*ghi...@gmail.comjavascript:
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 18, 2014 2:02 PM
*To:*
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:37:43 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 February 2014 17:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:28:18 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 February 2014 14:17, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:28:15 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:12:52 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 18/02/2014, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote
On Monday, February 17, 2014 10:30:23 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/17/2014 7:09 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 06:32:35PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/17/2014 5:21 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 02:03:49PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/17/2014
On Monday, February 17, 2014 12:44:43 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:45:13 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote
On Monday, February 17, 2014 8:33:48 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
All of science assumes an external reality independent of human
observation.
Only for the last few centuries. Before that, natural philosophy was firmly
grounded in the assumption of parallel-symmetric
On Monday, February 17, 2014 7:29:48 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 03:19, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:07:06 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 00:29, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
You
On Monday, February 17, 2014 4:55:29 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
You and I share an intersubjective reality. Liz I share another one,
that is almost, but not quite, the same. The rat and I share another
one, but it is rather different, and more basic. A being in a
completely
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 12:35:59 AM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 2:06 pm, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
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
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:29:09 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 00:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:43:29 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 15 February 2014 18:32, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
You can't copy awareness
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:22:50 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
No, the proper understanding is that gravitation and curved space are
EQUIVALENT. Both are produced by the presence of mass-energy (and stress).
I would say that gravity and curved space are metaphorical
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:45:13 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:49:56 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 16 February 2014 01:32, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
A quick video that can shed some light on the inadequacy of bottom-up
models.
--
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
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:12:03 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 14:06, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
If there were some way to copy a fully developed body so that it lived, it
would still not be a copy of the original, but just a new original
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:58:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:29:09 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 00:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:43:29 PM UTC-5
can be conceived of as absolute must supervene on an even more primordial
possibility of aesthetic appreciation and intentional participation.
Craig
Edgar
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:35:32 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:22:50 PM UTC-5, Edgar L
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:18:54 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 17:48, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Ah, but then you would be faced with the questions posed by the UDA/MWI
arguments, because there would then be two conscious originals who
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:09:13 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 19:05, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be
javascript:wrote:
Why not being agnostic, especially that you have admitted not having
studied computer science.
Why being negative on something that you ignore?
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:05:09 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 18:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
A quick video that can shed some light on the inadequacy of bottom-up
models.
Nice video, Craig.
But don't make
to others.
Craig
Edgar
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:05:15 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 12:32:35 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Craig,
I agree with your idea in one sense, that actually space and clock time
are just computational relationships between
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:23:11 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 18:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:58:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:29:09 AM UTC-5
to produce some exact dimensional 'measurement'
in each other's frames.
Edgar
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 10:04:24 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:51:18 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
But that assumes that consciousness is prior
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 7:12:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/16/2014 11:34 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 17:42, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote:
I don't disagree, but I think this formulation leaves meaning as
mysterious and one may ask why
understanding suffices to trump reason itself.
You don't suggest that I can't understand comp, but you suggest that I am
impervious to reasoned argument about it...why would that be the case if I
understood comp as you seem to think it deserves to be understood?
David
On 16 Feb 2014 21:38, Craig
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:07:06 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 00:29, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You don't suggest that I can't understand comp, but you suggest that I am
impervious to reasoned argument about it...why would that be the case
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
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 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
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 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
On Friday, February 14, 2014 5:19:01 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 14 February 2014 17:42, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript:
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 04:23:00PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 14 February 2014 15:40, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript:
wrote:
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:10:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 12 February 2014 08:13, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Explanation, unlike causation is not just of an event but of an event
under a description. An explanation must show why it was likely than
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:30:25 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 12 February 2014 23:47, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I don't think that my experience can be replaced with a copy though.
So how would you know you were a copy?
It has nothing
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:45:23 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 14 February 2014 00:07, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I'm saying that the process can also stop by the inquisitor and the
answerer both realizing that meaning, life, and aesthetic qualities might
then everything can be said to be composed of numbers=bits,
and only of numbers=bits. Or more properly of numbers=bits and their
relationships.
Edgar
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 3:07:48 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:57:11 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:05:34 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:23:14AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Craig,
I also suspect Bruno's math skills are superior to mine, but his
understanding of the place of math in reality seems pretty deficient, or
http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/octal3.jpg
--
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.
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:51:18 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
But that assumes that consciousness is prior to ontological reality, to
actual being. That's one of the things I find most ridiculous about both
Bruno's comp and block universes, that they assume everything is
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:19:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 22:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Explanation, unlike causation is not just of an event but of an event
under a description. An explanation must show why it was likely than an
event *of that type
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:18:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 19:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Our internal experience is informed directly by opportunities for
quasi-veridical sensory entanglement from within, without, and beyond our
neurology. It is the idea
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:26:51 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 12 February 2014 05:21, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2014 7:51:58 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 11 February 2014 11:23, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:23:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:19:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 22:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Explanation, unlike causation is not just
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 12:32:20 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 17:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:23:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:19:38 AM
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:36:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:18:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 19:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Our internal experience is informed
, February 12, 2014 11:36:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Feb 2014, at 13:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:18:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 19:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Our internal experience is informed directly by opportunities
On Monday, February 10, 2014 7:51:58 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 11 February 2014 11:23, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Continuity and the idea that physical laws will be consistent in
different times and places are definitely assumptions. They could turn
out
I think that the opposite of everything that you are saying makes more
sense.:
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:07:07 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
So the take away is that :
1. The universe, and everything in it, consists of information only. And
that information consists only of
Explanation, unlike causation is not just of an event but of an event
under a description. An explanation must show why it was likely than an
event *of that type* occurred. - Thomas Nagel
This quote applies to my rejection of Comp since Comp does not explain why
there is any such type of
On Monday, February 10, 2014 12:48:31 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 9 February 2014 22:40, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:27:57 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 9 February 2014 15:11, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote
On Monday, February 10, 2014 1:55:12 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 9 February 2014 22:50, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Neuroscientists assume that we think with our brains just as cardiac
physiologists assume the heart pumps blood around the body. It's
On Monday, February 10, 2014 11:36:53 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript:
wrote:
We cannot detect it, nor can be detect intelligence. We can detect
competence, relatively to a domain.
Apparently you believe the
On Monday, February 10, 2014 3:51:59 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 10 February 2014 00:32, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Strictly speaking everything is tentative and subject to revision in
the
light of new evidence, but some things in science as well
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 5:39:58 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Feb 2014, at 05:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
How do you know that you are really reading these words?
The question is ambiguous. If really reading these words refer to the
quale of reading those words, then I agree I
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:27:57 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 9 February 2014 15:11, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:47:26 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 7 February 2014 07:47, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:28:09 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 9 February 2014 15:10, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
It's an assumption in science that the language difference is due to
brain difference. That's not to say that our techniques are at present
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 7:23:12 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On 9 February 2014 17:10, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:55:43 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 8 February 2014
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:23:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Feb 2014, at 12:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 5:39:58 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Feb 2014, at 05:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
How do you know that you are really reading
If Dark Matter and Dark Energy represents 96% of the “known” universe,
even if it paradoxically turns out that we know virtually nothing about it,
what other kinds of ratios-in-ignorance lurk as shockingly in our
self-significant lives?
There are 23% of Dark Matter and 73% of Dark Energy. -
theories of science.
This is just basic scientific method, or one essential aspect of it
I agree. That's all that I was calling for - that we test the assumption
that language difference is due to
brain difference.
Craig
Edgar
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 11:10:03 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg
explanation of both...
Cool.
Craig
Edgar
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 6:50:18 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:28:09 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 9 February 2014 15:10, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
It's an assumption in science
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 3:31:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Feb 2014, at 17:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 11:52:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Feb 2014, at 19:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/6/2014 8:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_Mathematics_Comes_From
Lakoff and Núñez's avowed purpose is to begin laying the foundations for a
truly scientific understanding of mathematics, one grounded in processes
common to all human cognition. They find that four distinct but related
processes
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:47:26 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 7 February 2014 07:47, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:
wrote:
Well, I *could* be a zombie and still say that, unless you consider
the idea of zombies contradictory (which maybe it is).
I bet you are
How do you know that you are really reading these words?
People misread things all the time. Maybe it just feels like you are
reading them? You could be having a brain aneurism. Logically, there is no
way to prove that you are reading these words right now.
The fact that you might not really
On Friday, February 7, 2014 11:52:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Feb 2014, at 19:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/6/2014 8:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes. But it is not a back and forth. It just happen that when machine
looks inward, and stay honest with herself, she cannot avoid
On Friday, February 7, 2014 12:39:06 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
it impossible to make a brain replacement that is 100% functional.
If so then right now your brain is not 100% functional because
language (not by looking at trace compounds that would identify a
geographic region, etc, but strictly by the vast number of different words
and phrases that they use)?
On Friday, February 7, 2014 12:39:06 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats
On Friday, February 7, 2014 1:03:36 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript:
wrote:
Computation is 3p, and consciousness is 1p, and no 1p thing can be a 3p
thing.
Sure it can. There is no consistent definition of p so 3p
On Friday, February 7, 2014 7:33:28 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 8 February 2014 07:48, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:wrote:
On 06 Feb 2014, at 21:43, LizR wrote:
Because Turing universality is a mathematical notion.
It has nothing to do with physics.
I must admit I was
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 3:59:45 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 5 February 2014 23:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:57:43 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 5 February 2014 13:46, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 11:00:27 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Feb 2014, at 19:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:39:47 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Feb 2014, at 14:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
snip
Why would I share an elementary belief
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 11:22:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Feb 2014, at 20:29, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:53:56 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Feb 2014, at 13:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:37:39 AM UTC
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:37:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Numbers can be derived from sensible physics
That is a claim often done, but nobody has ever succeed without assuming
Turing universality (and thus the numbers
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:57:43 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 5 February 2014 13:46, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 8:38:31 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 5 February 2014 01:31, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:54:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:20, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 11:54:26 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 12:46, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 February 2014 22:32, Bruno Marchal
http://25.media.tumblr.com/e4ec0767a8854cf10c8fdec1cb855703/tumblr_n06qgdRrjs1qcflzio9_1280.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/bba3881d6f7e1d897e071fcdb60ae3cf/tumblr_n06qgdRrjs1qcflzio10_1280.jpg
more
http://rollership.tumblr.com/post/75567004763
--
You received this message because you are
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:39:47 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Feb 2014, at 14:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:54:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:20, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 11:54:26 AM UTC
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:53:56 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Feb 2014, at 13:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:37:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Numbers can be derived from sensible physics
On Monday, February 3, 2014 4:45:47 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
Liz,
Great recommendations, and excellent topic idea.
The Prestige is the movie that got me interested in these topics and led
me to this list. Also, for US viewers, Chronochrimes goes by Timecrimes
and is available under
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 3:01:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Feb 2014, at 15:33, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2014 2:57:11 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 19:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 4:36:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:37:59 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 4 February 2014 11:19, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
It's because you're stuck on the idea that consciousness is something
extra and optional. If you could see that it was logically entailed
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 3:57:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Feb 2014, at 21:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2014 3:17:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/2/2014 5:37 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Craig, nothing
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 9:19:51 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 4 February 2014 13:19, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Because silicon happens to have been disallowed for biological experience.
Silicon and carbon are symbols and signs of the footprint
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 8:57:26 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.comjavascript:
wrote:
On 4 February 2014 11:46, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
Why? You agree that there is still one way causal link. That is
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 10:51:02 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 4 February 2014 14:52, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 9:19:51 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 4 February 2014 13:19, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 11:54:26 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 12:46, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 4 February 2014 22:32, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:
wrote:
My view is that if consciousness is epiphenomenal it's meaningless
to
ask
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:57:45 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 4 February 2014 17:32, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote:
I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing a theory on
something other than it's own terms. I think Craig might accept Bruno's
argument
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:36:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/4/2014 12:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But I don't believe that. I think that consciousness is a necessary
aspect of intelligence,
OK.
and that is functionally observable.
It is not. Leibniz already
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 6:00:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 4 February 2014 23:44, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 01:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It's because you're stuck on the idea that consciousness is something
extra and optional. If you could
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 6:06:32 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 5 February 2014 06:36, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote:
On 2/4/2014 12:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But I don't believe that. I think that consciousness is a necessary
aspect of intelligence,
OK.
and
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 8:38:31 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 5 February 2014 01:31, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
As per my answer to David: if you could show that a physical
phenomenon of a particular type necessarily leads to consciousness
On Monday, February 3, 2014 2:57:11 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Feb 2014, at 19:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 4:36:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Feb 2014, at 21:12, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:16:43 PM UTC-5
201 - 300 of 3100 matches
Mail list logo
