Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

Am 02.04.2021 um 22:24 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List: On 4/2/2021 1:10 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Am 02.04.2021 um 20:27 schrieb Brent Meeker: On 4/1/2021 11:39 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism . I am sorry, I have

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

Am 02.04.2021 um 20:27 schrieb Brent Meeker: On 4/1/2021 11:39 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Only philosophically naive neuroscientists reject realism . I am sorry, I have not understood your answer. Do you mean that a person sees red flowers directly? In the same physical location? I don't

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

you agree with the virtual world theory or do you reject it? Evgeny Am 01.04.2021 um 22:20 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List: On 4/1/2021 8:10 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Am 31.03.2021 um 20:16 schrieb Brent Meeker: Yes, in general he sees the flowers where they are located (I don't k

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

cated somewhere else as the physical objects. Do you agree with what neuroscience says? Or you prefer naive realism? In my view the attached picture makes a big difference to what Rovelli says. Yet, let us clear a position in the respect to the attached picture. Do we accept it or do not? Br

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

e red flowers in the same position where the physical object is located? How would you answer this question? You changes in the picture do not give a clear answer to this question. Evgeny Am 30.03.2021 um 22:21 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List: On 3/30/2021 9:10 AM, Evgenii

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

> That is not at all what Rovelli says. You still see red, but you have > learned that it is due to 564-580nm photons exciting neurons in your eye > (b) and not rays reaching out from your eyes to contact redness (a). I am afraid that it will not work this way. To show this, I have attached a

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

I have read Rovelli's paper. I am disappointed. What Rovelli suggest is eliminativism. Red (a) (what I see) does not exist but red (b) (electromagnetic wave peaking near 564–580 nm) exists. Rovelli should have read first: Donald D. Hoffman. The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth

Re: Evolution 2.0 Prize - $10 million

found in the studied biochemical systems and in random reaction networks where the number of second order reactions is twice the number of species." I guess that they should apply for the prize. Evgeny Am 19.01.2021 um 00:58 schrieb smitra: On 18-01-2021 18:03, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Am 18.01.202

Re: Evolution 2.0 Prize - $10 million

Am 18.01.2021 um 01:01 schrieb Lawrence Crowell: There are molecules that already do this. DNA and polypeptides are sequences that are in effect codes. Yes, this is exactly the point by the prize. The question is to show how something like this could happen spontaneously. Evgeny LC On

Evolution 2.0 Prize - $10 million

"How do you get from chemicals to code? How do you get a code without designing one?" "What You Must Do to Win The Prize You must arrange for a digital communication system to emerge or self-evolve without "cheating." The diagram below describes the system. Without explicitly designing the

Law without law: from observer states to physics via algorithmic information theory

"According to our current conception of physics, any valid physical theory is supposed to describe the objective evolution of a unique external world. However, this condition is challenged by quantum theory, which suggests that physical systems should not always be understood as having

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

Am 13.09.2019 um 03:11 schrieb spudboy100 via Everything List: On that Evgenii, we do concur. Yet, big companies or big governments probably head to this guy's door, if they need something to ask?Now, that may not be a big deal unless he is contributing to the DoD? By organizing a military

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

here. Possibly Standish from Aus, or Bruno from The Heart of Europe, than anyone on this auguste mailing list. Hilbert Space, De Sitter Space, it's probably the same (hypothesis!). It is all phase space, sez the Swami. -Original Message- From: Evgenii Rudnyi To: Everything List Sent

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

When the physicist says "The best answer we can give is that reality is a vector in Hilbert space", it shows that he cannot be cured. Evgenii Am Donnerstag, 12. September 2019 06:45:41 UTC+2 schrieb Alan Grayson: > >

Re: The Neuroscience of Reality

And what about the paper in Scientific American? Is it also about a pseudo-problem? If not, what is the difference? Evgenii Am 04.09.2019 um 21:59 schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List: On 9/3/2019 12:32 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: It looks like this is yet another virtual world theory

Re: The Neuroscience of Reality

It looks like this is yet another virtual world theory, cf. A Cartoon Epistemology by Steve Lehar http://cns-alumni.bu.edu/~slehar/cartoonepist/cartoonepist.html Evgenii Am 03.09.2019 um 08:12 schrieb Russell Standish: On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 01:56:48AM -0700, Philip Thrift wrote: Reality

Artist and Picture by J.W. Dunne

"A certain artist, having escaped from the lunatic asylum in which, rightly or wrongly, he had be confined, purchased the materials of his craft and set to work to make a complete picture of the universe." ... "The interpretation of this parable is sufficiently obvious. The artist is trying

Re: Precision

Am 16.05.2019 um 19:05 schrieb Bruno Marchal: On 15 May 2019, at 19:01, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: This is not a joke. For internal reason Eddington evaluated the number of particles as N = 2 x 136 x 2^256. Is 136 related to some physical constant? Why 2^(a power of two)? Any idea where

Re: Precision

Am 15.05.2019 um 07:59 schrieb Philip Thrift: ... On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ‘I believe there are 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296 protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons

Re: Precision

This is not a joke. For internal reason Eddington evaluated the number of particles as N = 2 x 136 x 2^256. To show it more vividly, he has written this result in full. Evgenii Am 14.05.2019 um 16:24 schrieb Bruno Marchal: On 12 May 2019, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ‘I believe

Precision

‘I believe there are 15,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,631,031,296 protons in the universe, and the same number of electrons.’ Eddington, Arthur S. 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.

Re: beautiful visualization of the first million integers

Thank you. It looks really good. Evgenii -- 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

Re: On natural selection of the laws of nature, Occam's razor and The Simplest Model

In Peirce's *Evolutionary love *there were also *anancasticism*, and *agapasticism*. "Three modes of evolution have thus been brought before us: evolution by fortuitous variation, evolution by mechanical necessity, and evolution by creative love. We may term them *tychastic* evolution, or

Mathematics as the result of natural selection

"In the past decades, recent paradigm shifts in ethology, psychology, and the social sciences have given rise to various new disciplines like cognitive ethology and evolutionary psychology. These disciplines use concepts and theories of evolutionary biology to understand and explain the

Can a Robot Have Free Will?

Keith Douglas Farnsworth. Can a Robot Have Free Will? Entropy 19, no. 5 (2017): 237. http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/19/5/237 "Using insights from cybernetics and an information-based understanding of biological systems, a precise, scientifically inspired, definition of free-will is offered

Mathematicians are machines that are unable to recognize the fact that they are machines

I am reading a Russian book about the “no computer thesis” based on the Gödel theorem. In the book there was a nice quote - see below - that somewhat close to what Bruno says. "And if such is the case, then we (qua mathematicians) are machines that are unable to recognize the fact that they

Maudlin's Computation and Consciousness

Dear Bruno, Long time ago you have discussed Maudlin's paper. At that time I somehow did not get interested. Yet, other day I have got strong feeling that I must read Maudlin's paper right now. I guess this could be explained by peculiarities of the universal dovetailer. Anyway, I have read

Re: What are atheists for?

Am 01.04.2017 um 23:50 schrieb Brent Meeker: On 4/1/2017 12:39 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... I would like to note that in the paper that I have referenced discusses a completely different question. Provided that one could explain religion in the framework of evolutionary advantages

Re: What are atheists for?

Am 01.04.2017 um 10:45 schrieb Russell Standish: Maybe we can think along the lines of why the "gay gene" persists. Gay people make attentive uncles, improving the fitness of their near relatives, or so the "just-so" story goes. Maybe atheists are freer thinkers, able to think outside the box

Re: What are atheists for?

Am 31.03.2017 um 21:40 schrieb Brent Meeker: On 3/31/2017 6:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ... The problem is that the strong atheists called themselves just atheists, and then claim they have no belief, when in fact they believe in 0 god, unlike agnostic who say: I don't know, give the

What are atheists for?

Dominic Johnson What are atheists for? Hypotheses on the functions of non-belief in the evolution of religion Religion, Brain & Behavior Vol. 2, No. 1, February 2012, 48-99 http://dominicdpjohnson.com/publications/pdf/2012JohnsonWhatAreAtheistsFor.pdf "An explosion of recent research suggests

Re: Self-explaining Game of Life?

Am 16.10.2016 um 19:32 schrieb John Clark: ... No, I do not know what life is. I guess, nobody does. ​You know what life is you just don't have a definition, but you have something much better, examples. After being given a few examples of things that are alive and things that are not it's

Re: Self-explaining Game of Life?

naturalism. https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/poetic-naturalism/ The difference, in my view, is not that big though. Evgeny Am 15.10.2016 um 19:20 schrieb Bruno Marchal: On 11 Oct 2016, at 19:43, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: I have listened to Sean Carroll's Big Picture. His world view

Re: Self-explaining Game of Life?

you have any closer(?) idea what *ALIVE* may mean? (and watch out, the next question maybe about *"ORGANISM") .* I would not go that deeply as to question a (pure???) religious concept. Mit vorzüglicher Anerkennung - (for 'best regards') John Mikes On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 8:32 A

Re: Self-explaining Game of Life?

I F E ? How induced? The question is exciting, I would learn more about it. John Mikes On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote: I have listened to Sean Carroll's Big Picture. His world view is actually similar to the Game of Life, well, the rules are a b

Self-explaining Game of Life?

I have listened to Sean Carroll's Big Picture. His world view is actually similar to the Game of Life, well, the rules are a bit more complicated. Below is the link to the equation that he proposes. Carroll claims that his equation describes human beings as well. He takes a compatibilist

Re: Conversations Between Trees

You may also like Gagliano Monica and Grimonprez Mavra, Breaking the Silence—Language and the Making of Meaning in Plants, Ecopsychology. September 2015, 7(3): 145-152. *http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/eco.2015.0023*

Re: What it Means to Live in a Virtual World Generated by Our Brain

Am 29.08.2016 um 15:02 schrieb Bruno Marchal: ... Irrealism on the other hand states the the external world is a part of the virtual world. I guess that Bruno's theory is close to irrealism. Except it is not a theory, but a theorem (in the mechanist theory, which of course is not mine).

Re: What it Means to Live in a Virtual World Generated by Our Brain

Am 28.08.2016 um 18:07 schrieb Jason Resch: Why do we dream? I think it is because the brain is a dreaming machine. Waking life is merely a dream kept roughly in sync with reality through clues passed in from the senses. But this is exactly the question. What reality is for someone that

What it Means to Live in a Virtual World Generated by Our Brain

I have found a nice paper Jan Westerhoff, What it Means to Live in a Virtual World Generated by Our Brain, Erkenntnis (2016) 81:507–528 The author considers the logical consequences from the theory that the brain generates a virtual world. Below is how Richard Dawkins describes the theory

Re: Cryonics in the NYT

Neuroscience as a new messiah. People's belief in an afterlife will never go away. Especially in our enlightenment age. -- 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

Re: Mathematics is Physics

simultaneously. Evgenii Am 25.08.2015 um 20:29 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/25/2015 11:09 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: That's what most comments to Fodor's argument look like: this is false because it must be false. But this king of answers are not that impressive. It is up to you to believe

Re: Mathematics is Physics

24.08.2015 um 20:10 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/24/2015 10:27 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Am 23.08.2015 um 19:47 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/23/2015 12:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you can read his answer to comments. I read his answer and it's

Re: Mathematics is Physics

Am 23.08.2015 um 19:47 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/23/2015 12:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you can read his answer to comments. I read his answer and it's silly. He says that Darwin's explanation of why polar bears are white

Re: Mathematics is Physics

Am 23.08.2015 um 00:27 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/22/2015 9:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: An argument based on a selection might be empty. See Jerry Fodor, Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings I guess you might get that impression if you read

Re: Mathematics is Physics

An argument based on a selection might be empty. See Jerry Fodor, Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings Evgenii Am Mittwoch, 19. August 2015 02:18:00 UTC+2 schrieb Brent: I like Wenmackers essay too.

Leibniz: When God calculates, the world is made

Leibniz' note on his Dialogs: When God calculates and thinks things through, the world is made. Cum Deus calculat et cogitationem exercet, mundus fit. I have found it in M. Heller, Ultimate Explanations of the Universe. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: In case anyone's in doubt, Daniel Dennett thinks consciousness is an illusion

Philosopher Dan Dennett makes a compelling argument that not only don't we understand our own consciousness, but that half the time our brains are actively fooling us. I wonder if Dennett has mentioned what percentage of time his brain was actively fooling him during his talk. Am Dienstag, 2.

Re: Consciousness creates physics

of the human mind on phenomena (items, processes) perceived in adjusted formats available to the mind. No justification and no formatting to any 'reality'. That includes the Hoffmann-Prakash Psychology as well. (I did not read the paper). JM On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru

Consciousness creates physics

Enjoy. Evgenii Donald David Hoffman, Chetan Prakash, Objects of consciousness, Frontiers in Psychology, v. 5, N 00577, 2014. http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full “We develop the dynamics of interacting conscious agents, and study how the perception of objects

Re: Consciousness creates physics

1:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Enjoy. Evgenii Donald David Hoffman, Chetan Prakash, Objects of consciousness, Frontiers in Psychology, v. 5, N 00577, 2014. http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full “We develop the dynamics of interacting conscious agents, and study

Re: Galen Strawson: Consciousness myth

Am 16.03.2015 um 17:13 schrieb Bruno Marchal: On 15 Mar 2015, at 20:37, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1523413.ece An interesting paper that reviews the history on consciousness in philosophy in order to display that Twenty years ago, however, an instant

Galen Strawson: Consciousness myth

http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1523413.ece An interesting paper that reviews the history on consciousness in philosophy in order to display that Twenty years ago, however, an instant myth was born: a myth about a dramatic resurgence of interest in the topic of consciousness in

Re: Long term memory is extra-corporeal

indicates that DNA methylation may serve as a contributing mechanism in memory formation and storage. Although the meaning of the term long term memory might not be exactly the same. Evgeii Am 26.12.2014 um 22:06 schrieb meekerdb: On 12/26/2014 11:56 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Am 26.12.2014 um

Re: Long term memory is extra-corporeal

Am 27.12.2014 um 22:33 schrieb meekerdb: On 12/27/2014 12:05 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: I should say that I am not an expert in this issue, however I have found the paper entertaining. The history of Samuel Butler is quite interesting. Butler in 19th century held that heredity and brain memory

Re: Long term memory is extra-corporeal

Am 26.12.2014 um 19:55 schrieb meekerdb: But to say that DNA provides long term memory seems like an abuse of terminology, making a metaphor into a factual description. DNA provides memory only in that sometimes parts of it get to reproduce. Genes are more persistent units, but their memory

Long term memory is extra-corporeal

In paper Forsdyke, D.R. (2009). Samuel Butler and human long term memory: is the cupboard bare? Journal of Theoretical Biology 258(1), 156-164. (see http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/mind01.htm) the author considers a possibility that the long term memory is outside the brain. I guess that

Karl Pribram: the holographic brain

I once have heard that Karl Pribram has a theory of a holographic brain and decided to read his latest book Karl H Pribram, The Form Within: My Point of View. Unfortunately I was unable to understand his theory, as for me the book was too eclectic. One quote that I like is below, but I have

Re: David Bohm: Thought as a System

I have finished reading the book. As usual, there is no direct answer. Well, p. 220 freedom is the creative perception of a new order of necessity. Evgenii -- http://blog.rudnyi.ru/tag/david-bohm -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List

Re: David Bohm: Thought as a System

On 01.09.2013 21:52 meekerdb said the following: Unconditioned=random works. I do not think so. I would say that If we say that the unconditioned is random, then it would be foolish for us to try to do anything with the conditioning. Evgenii Brent On 9/1/2013 6:39 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi

Re: David Bohm: Thought as a System

On 02.09.2013 20:41 meekerdb said the following: On 9/2/2013 10:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 01.09.2013 21:52 meekerdb said the following: Unconditioned=random works. I do not think so. I would say that If we say that the unconditioned is random, then it would be foolish for us to try

David Bohm: Thought as a System

I am reading David Bohm, Thought as a System. A few quotes below to the theme that is quite often under discussion here. Evgenii p. 72 “We have to be able to think on this clearly; even though, as I said, that by itself won’t really change the reflexes. But if we don’t think of it clearly

Neuroscience about Newton

Lovely quotes from Michael S. Gazzaniga, Who’s in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain that show how physics is made. “I can’t Believe My Eyes! In moment-to-moment activity, the interpreter [in the brain] is always dealing with the changing inputs from sites in the brain where

Re: Everett and Einstein

On 29.06.2013 22:14 smi...@zonnet.nl said the following: Well, there is no point in living if you don't want to live. And if you don't live from some time onward, you still live at earlier times. In fact, you are alive today, because you are going to die in the future (otherwise the probability

Everett and Einstein

Quote from Peter Byrne, The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett III: Multiple Universes, Mutual Assured Destruction, and the Meltdown of a Nuclear Family p. 25 Nancy about Everett: This is a guy who at the tender age of 12 wrote a letter to Albert Einstein, and received a reply! I think his mom -

Re: Cybersemiotics

On 29.06.2013 11:19 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 28 Jun 2013, at 20:35, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... Do you mean this sentence But the theories of the phenomenological life world and the hermeneutics of the meaning of communication seem to defy classical scientific explanations

Re: Everett and Einstein

suicides? Mitch -Original Message- From: Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Jun 29, 2013 3:17 am Subject: Everett and Einstein Quote from Peter Byrne, The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett III: Multiple niverses, Mutual Assured

Re: Cybersemiotics

On 26.06.2013 15:53 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 23 Jun 2013, at 22:12, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 23.06.2013 20:07 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 23 Jun 2013, at 15:07, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Soren Brier, Cybersemiotics: A New Foundation for Transdisciplinary Theory

Re: Cybersemiotics

On 27.06.2013 03:15 Craig Weinberg said the following: On Sunday, June 23, 2013 9:07:08 AM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Soren Brier, Cybersemiotics: A New Foundation for Transdisciplinary Theory of Information, Cognition, Meaningful Communication and the Interaction Between Nature

Cybersemiotics

Soren Brier, Cybersemiotics: A New Foundation for Transdisciplinary Theory of Information, Cognition, Meaningful Communication and the Interaction Between Nature and Culture, INTEGRAL REVIEW, June 2013, Vol. 9, No. 2, p. 220-263.

Re: Cybersemiotics

On 23.06.2013 20:07 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 23 Jun 2013, at 15:07, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Soren Brier, Cybersemiotics: A New Foundation for Transdisciplinary Theory of Information, Cognition, Meaningful Communication and the Interaction Between Nature and Culture, INTEGRAL

The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness

The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

On 15.05.2013 21:02 meekerdb said the following: On 5/15/2013 12:02 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 14.05.2013 21:45 meekerdb said the following: On 5/14/2013 12:29 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 May 2013, at 19:12, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 14.05.2013 16:51 Bruno Marchal said the following

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

On 16.05.2013 08:22 meekerdb said the following: On 5/15/2013 11:00 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 15.05.2013 21:02 meekerdb said the following: On 5/15/2013 12:02 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 14.05.2013 21:45 meekerdb said the following: On 5/14/2013 12:29 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 May

Reversing the flow of oil

http://vimeo.com/52888178 -- 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

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

On 16.05.2013 15:50 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 16 May 2013, at 08:00, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 15.05.2013 21:02 meekerdb said the following: On 5/15/2013 12:02 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 14.05.2013 21:45 meekerdb said the following: On 5/14/2013 12:29 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

On 16.05.2013 18:22 meekerdb said the following: On 5/16/2013 12:41 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... I might be wrong and it might be interesting to look the archives through more carefully. Well, this was my impression that mental is physical was expressed quite often here. What

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

On 14.05.2013 21:45 meekerdb said the following: On 5/14/2013 12:29 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 May 2013, at 19:12, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 14.05.2013 16:51 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 14 May 2013, at 15:33, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... If you are monist, that distinction

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

On 14.05.2013 23:45 John Mikes said the following: On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: ... * The difference between natural and artificial is ... artificial. And thus it is natural ... for creatures which are developing some ego. artificial is a human

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

On 14.05.2013 21:29 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 14 May 2013, at 19:12, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... In the last case, a male bird catches a fish and gives it to the bride. Could we consider a fish as a sign in this case? I do not know what happens under comp but I personally see

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

On 14.05.2013 11:01 Telmo Menezes said the following: On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 13 May 2013, at 18:29, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... The author failed to make definitions for artificial and natural. Could you define these terms

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

On 14.05.2013 13:39 Telmo Menezes said the following: On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: On 14.05.2013 11:01 Telmo Menezes said the following: On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 13 May 2013, at 18:29, Evgenii

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

On 14.05.2013 16:51 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 14 May 2013, at 15:33, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: I am interested in the difference between natural and artificial. So a computer both natural and artificial. Do you know things that are just natural and where the term artificial

Natural vs. Artificial

Recently I have listened to a nice talk about the search of extraterrestrial intelligence http://embryogenesisexplained.com/2013/03/the-starivore-hypothesis.html The author has mentioned two fallacies (slides 6 and 7) Artificiality-of-the-gaps and Naturality-of-the-gaps However, I was

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

On 13.05.2013 17:41 Telmo Menezes said the following: On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: Recently I have listened to a nice talk about the search of extraterrestrial intelligence http://embryogenesisexplained.com/2013/03/the-starivore-hypothesis.html

The Uses of a Screwdriver Cannot be Listed Algorithmically

I am reading now Beyond Mechanism: Putting Life back into Biology. In Foreword: Evolution beyond Newton, Darwin, and Entailing Law, Stuart A. Kauffman writes: p. 9 Here is the first 'strange' step. Can you name all the uses of a screwdriver, alone, or with other objects or process? Well,

Re: The world is in the brain

On 12.04.2013 16:01 Telmo Menezes said the following: On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: On 10.04.2013 23:59 meekerdb said the following: On 4/10/2013 1:55 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 10.04.2013 22:52 Telmo Menezes said the following: ... I suspect

Re: The world is in the brain

On 10.04.2013 23:59 meekerdb said the following: On 4/10/2013 1:55 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 10.04.2013 22:52 Telmo Menezes said the following: ... I suspect life is just meaningless from the outside. I'd say that pain and pleasure are fine-tunned by evolution to maximise

Re: The world is in the brain

On 10.04.2013 22:58 meekerdb said the following: On 4/10/2013 1:38 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 10.04.2013 22:34 meekerdb said the following: On 4/10/2013 1:18 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 10.04.2013 07:16 meekerdb said the following: On 4/9/2013 12:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote

Re: The world is in the brain

On 10.04.2013 07:16 meekerdb said the following: On 4/9/2013 12:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... I have seen that this could be traced to Schrödinger’s What is Life?, reread his chapter on Order, Disorder and Entropy and made my comments http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2013/04/schrodinger-disorder

Re: The world is in the brain

On 10.04.2013 22:34 meekerdb said the following: On 4/10/2013 1:18 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 10.04.2013 07:16 meekerdb said the following: On 4/9/2013 12:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... I have seen that this could be traced to Schrödinger’s What is Life?, reread his chapter on Order

Re: The world is in the brain

On 10.04.2013 22:36 Terren Suydam said the following: This is close to an idea I have been mulling over for some time... that the source of the phenomenological feeling of pleasure is in some way identified with decreases in entropy, and pain is in some way identified with increases in entropy.

Re: The world is in the brain

On 10.04.2013 22:52 Telmo Menezes said the following: ... I suspect life is just meaningless from the outside. I'd say that pain and pleasure are fine-tunned by evolution to maximise the survivability of species in an environment that is largely also generated by evolution. It's a strange

Re: The world is in the brain

On 08.04.2013 11:38 Bruno Marchal said the following: On 07 Apr 2013, at 19:20, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 07.04.2013 19:12 meekerdb said the following: On 4/6/2013 11:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 07.04.2013 02:40 Craig Weinberg said the following: Ok, here's my modified version of Fig 11

Re: The world is in the brain

On 07.04.2013 19:12 meekerdb said the following: On 4/6/2013 11:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 07.04.2013 02:40 Craig Weinberg said the following: Ok, here's my modified version of Fig 11 http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/33ost_diagram.jpg I believe that you have

The world is in the brain

Fingelkurts, A., Fingelkurts, A., and Neves, C. (2010). “Natural World Physical, Brain Operational, and Mind Phenomenal Space-Time”. *Physics of Life Reviews* 7(2): 195-249. http://scireprints.lu.lv/141/1/Fingelkurts_Space-time_in_Physics_brain_and_mind.pdf “We would like to discuss the

Religious Robots

Quotes from Robert Geraci, Apocalyptic AI: Visions of Heaven in Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, and Virtual Reality p. 133 Ray Kurzweil believes that intelligent machines will be more spiritual than human being and believes that the future will include real and virtual houses of worship

Re: Religious Robots

. If robots could do that, then presumably they could also tell us about their attitude to God. I mean that if someone believes that robot could be conscious then as a corollary robot's beliefs follow. Evgenii 2013/3/22 Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru Quotes from Robert Geraci, Apocalyptic AI

Re: Religious Robots

On 22.03.2013 13:41 Richard Ruquist said the following: On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: These beliefs in robotic religión has some reasons behind or it is simply wishful thinking? ... Religious beliefs will be programmed just as they are in

Re: Religious Robots

On 22.03.2013 13:47 Stephen P. King said the following: On 3/22/2013 7:16 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Quotes from Robert Geraci, Apocalyptic AI: Visions of Heaven in Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, and Virtual Reality ... Dear Evgennii, In your reading of Kurzweil, does he ever explain

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >