On Sun, Jul 14, 2024, 11:36 AM PGC wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, July 14, 2024 at 5:42:23 AM UTC+2 Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2024, 9:54 PM PGC wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, July 14, 2024 at 3:51:27 AM UTC+2 John Clark wrote:
>
> Yes it's poss
physical system's can be simulated to any desired degree of
accuracy, and moreover all known laws of physics are computable. Which
parts of physics do you refer to when you say there are parts that aren't
Turing emulable?
Jason
We can implement Turing Machines with matter, and even with const
fixed program. Then the Turing machine acts like some
particular machine. And if you want it to act differently, you need to
provide a different program.
Jason
>
> The number of n-state 2-symbol Turing Machines that exist is (4(n+1))^(2n),
> This is because there are n-1 non-halting st
e test by text (rather than in person with an
android body) was to prevent external clues from spoiling the result. To be
completely fair, perhaps the test needs to be amended to judge between an
AI and an uploaded human brain.
Jason
> And I don't see how a question like that could help you fig
On Fri, Jul 12, 2024, 7:02 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 7:01 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >> Who judges if the "phenomenal judgments" of the machine are correct or
>>> incorrect? Even humans can't agree among themselves about most
>>> p
hine is Turing Complete.
>
Perhaps you mean the brain is "Turing emulable" i.e. computable here,
rather than "Turing complete" (which is having the capacity emulate any
other Turing machine).
Jason
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis
> <http
On Thu, Jul 11, 2024, 6:00 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 5:33 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *> Consider a deterministic intelligent machine having no innate
>> philosophical knowledge or philosophical discussions while learning. Also,
>> the machine does n
On Thu, Jul 11, 2024, 5:28 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 5:01 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>> *> There are easier and harder tests than the Turing test. I don't know
>> why you say it's the only test we have. Also: would passing the Argonov
>>
est. I don't know why
you say it's the only test we have.
Also: would passing the Argonov test (which I described in my document on
whether zombies are possible) not be a sufficient proof of consciousness?
Note that the Argonov test is much harder to pass than the Turing test.
Jason
> See w
onsciousness. The human
brain (given it's limited and faulty memory) wouldn't even meet the
definition of being Turing complete.
Jason
> Brent
>
> On 7/10/2024 7:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> There was a study done in the 1950s on probabilistic Turing machines (
> https://
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 7:22 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 7/8/2024 1:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024, 4:01 PM John Clark wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 2:23 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> *> If you believe mental s
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 6:59 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 7/8/2024 11:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 10:29 AM John Clark wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 9:28 PM Brent Meeker
>> wrote:
>>
>> *>I tho
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 11:50 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> @Jason. Recursion is not self-reference. If you would have read my paper
> you would have seen that.
>
You alluded to a familiarity with computer programming. Have you s
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 10:50 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 8:31 AM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >> My dictionary says the definition of "*prerequisite*" is "*a thing
>>> that is required as a prior condition for something else to happen or
>
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 11:18 AM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
>
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 at 00:34, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 10:16 AM Stathis Papaioannou
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
&
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 10:16 AM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
>
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 22:15, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 4:33 AM Stathis Papaioannou
>> wrote:
>>
>>
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 8:17 AM Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 7:03 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Physical doesn't exist. "Physical" is just an idea in consciousness.
>>
>
&g
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 8:18 AM John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 7:54 AM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >>Consciousness is the inevitable product of intelligence, it is not the
>>> cause of intelligence.
>>>
>>
>>
>> *> **I didn't s
rt of a vast (apparent) reality we are each trying to navigate?
What's wrong with calling this reality we are each trying to navigate
(where this email exists) physical?
Do you see this reality as in any way shared?
Jason
> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 11:33:33 UTC+3 Stathis Papaioannou wrote
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 4:33 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 04:23, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 3:14 PM John Clark wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 1:58 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>&
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 7:48 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 4:20 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *> If consciousness is necessary for intelligence* [...]
>>
>
> Consciousness is the inevitable product of intelligence, it is not the
> cause of int
himneys to self-assemble presents from ambient matter, after they
scan the brain's of sleeping children to see if they are naughty or nice
and what present they hoped for.
Jason
> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 07:31:46 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024
ical entities
> where fairies live and they sprout rainbows ?
>
The Turing machine and (computability generally) is built on the notion of
recursion. I.e. self-reference. If we are conscious due to self-reference,
then why shouldn't recursive computer programs be conscious too?
Jason
> On
your own views, all of
reality is based (and therefore all of reality follows)?
Jason
> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 11:24:45 UTC+3 Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 18:04, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
it is called the "everything list")
Jason
> On Tuesday 9 July 2024 at 00:47:28 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024, 5:17 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Brain do
me not having read your paper.
Have you seen my paper on how computational observers build the world? It
reaches a similar conclusion to yours:
https://philpeople.org/profiles/jason-k-resch
Jason
> On Monday 8 July 2024 at 23:35:12 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On M
On Mon, Jul 8, 2024, 4:04 PM John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 2:12 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *>Consciousness is a prerequisite of intelligence.*
>>
>
> I think you've got that backwards, intelligence is a prerequisite of
> consciousness. And the poss
On Mon, Jul 8, 2024, 4:01 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 2:23 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *> If you believe mental states do not cause anything, then you believe
>> philosophical zombies are logically possible (since we could remove
>> consciousness w
On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 3:14 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 1:58 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *>>> ** I think such foresight is a necessary component of intelligence,
>>>> not a "byproduct".*
>>>
>>>
>>> >
ns (of the environment, or the current
situation) in order to act intelligently. It is in having perceptions that
consciousness appears. So consciousness is not a byproduct of, but an
integral and necessary requirement for intelligent action.
Jason
>
>
>> *> in which yo
consciousness does have effects. As you said previously, if consciousness
had no effects, there would be no reason for it to evolve in the first
place.
Why? It must be because consciousness is the byproduct of something else
> that is not useless, there are no other possibilities.
>
There
experience has no
noxiousness. I don't think such denies of pain would constitute evidence of
having pain, in the same way denying that one is conscious could be taken
as evidence of being conscious (as you have to have some self-awareness to
be in a position to deny what aspects of yourself
, in any system having the right configuration.
(Whether that configuration is functional/organizational/causal/or physical
is a separate question).
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this grou
On Wed, Jul 3, 2024, 6:20 PM PGC wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 2, 2024 at 6:52:28 PM UTC+2 Jason Resch wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 11:57 AM PGC wrote:
>
>
> I'm not trying to play jargon police or anything—everyone has a right to
> take part in the intelligenc
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024, 4:00 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 12:52 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *> I also see it as surprising that through hardware improvements alone,
>> and without specific breakthroughs in algorithms, we should see such great
>>
On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 11:57 AM PGC wrote:
> Jason,
>
> There's no universal consensus on intelligence beyond the broad outlines
> of the narrow vs general distinction. This is reflected in our informal
> discussion: some emphasize that effective action should be the result and
as generally intelligent? And if not, what else would need to be
done?
Jason
> On Monday, June 24, 2024 at 11:02:05 PM UTC+2 John Clark wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 10:00 AM PGC wrote:
>>
>>
>>> *> And for everybody here assuming the Mechanist ontolog
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 2:01 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> @Jason. You say:
>
> ""Every rule has an exception"
> This is a self referential sentence"
>
> But from my paper:
>
> "In “This
erences
helpful.
Jason
>
> On Tuesday 25 June 2024 at 19:18:25 UTC+3 Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024, 9:09 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I invite you to discover m
rs is their location within an information space.”
-- David Chalmers in "The Conscious Mind" (1996)
"A cat.
A cat is seen.
Something seen, must be a seer.
I see a cat.
I exist.
What is I?"
-- Jason
"Perhaps consciousness arises when the brain’s simulation of the
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024, 8:48 AM PGC wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, June 20, 2024 at 4:13:25 AM UTC+2 Jason Resch wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 6:05 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> You can always add some randomness to a computer program. LLM's aren't
> deterministic now. Hum
FyLcIWJ1C0Z3hTAX=2
There is no intelligence imparted to the design of the bots. They evolve
purely based on random variation of traits of the top performers (as
evaluated based on how much they ate during their life).
Jason
>
>
> On 6/19/2024 5:55 AM, PGC wrote:
>
> I'm hypothesizing here, a
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 12:48 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:33 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *> **Just the other day (on another list), I proposed that the problem
>> "hallucination" is not really a bug, but rather, it is what we have
>> des
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 10:59 AM Terren Suydam
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 3:24 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 16, 2024, 10:26 PM PGC wrote:
>>
>>> A lot of the excitement around LLMs is due to confusing skill/competence
a finite and fixed depth. This
means they are only capable of computing functions they can complete within
that fixed time (unless you argument them with a loop and memory). This is
like considering the limits of a human brain that was.onky given, say, 10
seconds to solve any problem. This is
xist in the
training corpus, language models can come to learn, recognize, and
extrapolate all of those thousands or millions of patterns. This is what we
think of as generality (a sufficiently large repertoire of pattern
recognition that it appears general).
Jason
> John, as you enjoyed th
to store
all intercepted encrypted communications long-term. Then once a quantum
computer of sufficient power is created, they can go back and decrypt this
archive of intercepted encrypted communications.
Jason
>
>
>
> On 5/6/2024 6:16 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> While adopting new
such a
computer (assuming that one also has the recorded communications protected
with current algorithms).
Jason
On Sun, May 5, 2024, 5:02 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
> The article implies that if China gets big quantum computers before we do
> they'll be able to read all our messages. But us getti
you're not careful, you could create 2^N minds. Where N is the number of
qubits.
Jason
> On Saturday, March 30, 2024 at 08:31:25 AM EDT, John Clark <
> johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 10:28 PM Russell Standish
> wrote:
>
>
> * >
w
it off, would anyone at the time say it is not AGI? I think we are only
blinded to the significance of what has happened because we are living
through history now and the history books have not yet covered this time.
Jason
> We may find out that the singularity is a lot further away than i
erence, I appreciate them!
I especially like: "the laws of physics, will be reinterpreted as
statements about information and its transformations."
I think I will include that in my write up. :-)
Jason
>
>
> Il 20/01/2024 01:10 +01 Jason Resch ha scritto:
>
>
> I put
who often debate
whether our reality is fundamentally computational/informational.
Jason
--
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 every
ite universe. But we only have access to a finite portion of
the universe, so perhaps it is fine to ignore the rest of it (infinite
space and universes) at least as it may relate to the measure problem.
Jason
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2023 at 2:52:31 PM UTC+1 Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
&
nd so we can arrive at different probabilities than those
> given by the Born rule. They call it the "measure problem" (not measurement
> problem).
>
Here, at about 6 minutes and 30 seconds in, Deutsch is asked how many
universes are there. He gives a finite number:
http
https://youtu.be/BU8Lg_R2DL0
This is timely.
Jason
--
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.co
count for the effectiveness
of quantum computers (unless one believes that non-real things can have
real, detectable effects (like producing the solution to factoring a large
semiprime)). But if you are realist about the wave function, then you are
dealing with MW, not QBism.
Jason
> Brent
&
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 4:02 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 11/29/2023 11:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 12:19 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 11/29/2023 8:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On We
you believe the moon doesn't exist when you're not looking
> at it?*". Apparently Bohr's response has been lost to history.
>
I believe it was Pais that he asked this question to, but he was in the
same camp of the non-realists like Bohr.
Jason
--
You received this message because you
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023, 12:19 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 11/29/2023 8:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 9:57 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 11/29/2023 4:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed,
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 10:45 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:46 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 8:39 PM Bruce Kellett
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 11:59 AM Jason Resch
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>&
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 9:57 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 11/29/2023 4:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 8:39 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 11:59 AM Jason Resch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:17 PM Bruce Kellett
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 10:49 PM Stathis Papaioannou
>>> wrote:
>>&g
w is this different than throwing a die and seeing it came up 6. Is
> that incompatible with that result having probability 1/6? Why don't we
> have a multiple-worlds theory of classical probabilities?
>
It's interesting, Feynman and others had this exact debate in that
reference scerir pro
all times are equally really). Yet you are only ever aware of being in one
time and in one place. I think this tells us more about the limitations of
our neurology than it reveals about the extent or nature of reality. If a
copy of me is created on Mars, the me know Earth doesn't magically become
a
branches. The example is chosen to neatly produce all branches of
> amplitude 1, but that cannot be significant since eqn(35) is not
> normalized. So the number of branches is not actually determined and could
> be anything.
>
I found this interesting, on comparing whether all
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 5:12 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 11/28/2023 1:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023, 4:55 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 11/28/2023 1:33 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>&g
needed if you're curious and want to look
> under the hood to figure out what could possibly make the quantum realm
> behave so weirdly.
>
>
> Except that in spite of many attempts the application of the Born rule
> isn't found under the hood.
>
Is it found in Copenhagen?
Jason
.
>
The time the decay occurs is roughly continuous over the hour of the
experiment. Thus the dead cat will have been dead for a random period
between 0 and 1 hours from the time it entered the box. You will find the
observed temperature of the cat will be a continuous variable correlat
Very well said!
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023, 7:23 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 7:45 PM Brent Meeker
> wrote:
>
> >> There is plenty of direct evidence that quantum weirdness exists, even
>>> the father of the Copenhagen Interpretation Niels Bohr admitted that
>>> "*Anyone
>>> who
t, but he didn't publish it. He mentioned it in a lecture in Dublin,
in which he predicted that the audience would think he was crazy. Isn't
that a strange assertion coming from a Nobel Prize winner—that he feared
being considered crazy for claiming that his equation, the one that he won
the Nobel Prize for,
changed things and made states disappear and do so
faster than light which EPR authors couldn't swallow. Their intuition
proved correct, there are no FTL influences.
Jason
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
>
That's kind of him to reply.
Aren't functional quantum computers proof that atoms can be in two places
at once?
Jat
On Sat, Nov 18, 2023, 6:58 AM John Clark wrote:
> *I read an article called The multiverse is unscientific nonsense
>
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023, 3:04 PM John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 1:59 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
> *> How does Apple (or whoever is signing the image and its metadata) know
>> it was taken by an iphone at a particular location?*
>>
>
> Rega
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023, 1:28 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 1:06 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >> I don't care if Joe Blow signs it or not with his private key that's
>>> on his iPhone because I have no reason to trust Mr. Blow. I want the Apple
>>> C
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023, 12:31 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 11:54 AM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >> I agree, but I think most people, myself included, would trust that
>>> the entire GPS satellite system is unlikely to be part of some grand
>>> conspira
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 10:44 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 11:11 AM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *> I think such protocols are only useful for verifying whether the image
>> came from an already known and trusted source. I don't see that it could
>> ver
not provide
you with false content).
Jason
On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 8:14 AM John Clark wrote:
> Now that AI art is so good it's becoming impossible to determine if a
> photograph is real or fake, but a new open-source internet protocol
> called "C2PA" may offer a solution. If camera an
that the people in these
"not-really-real" branches still behave like the conscious people in the
real branch; they have full lives, they talk to one another, they write
books about consciousness, they develop a pilot-wave theory that people in
other branches are zombies, etc.)
Jason
--
f a system, but at the last moment, it insists that a
computer implementing that same causal organization would not be conscious.
Jason
On Thu, Sep 21, 2023, 2:08 PM John Clark wrote:
> Consciousness theory slammed as "pseudoscience"
> <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-
igh intelligence), seems
to have been relatively short. We also note it occurs in many separate
evolutionary lines (cephalopods, cetaceans, corvids, primates).
It's true that if multicellular life is hard that intelligence is hard, but
it seems once there's multicellular life, intelligence is easy.
As Rob Garrett shows here, there's really nothing mysterious about
entanglement.
Entanglement is merely measurement. The mystery, if there is one, is why
are measurements consistent across time:
https://youtu.be/dEaecUuEqfc?si=psmNck41LbAW4SjV
Jason
On Mon, Sep 4, 2023, 7:48 AM 'scerir' via
do, but
superdeterminism is basically saying that's just how it is the universe has
preordained that humans flip coins such that they come up head's 66% of the
time.
Jason
Jason
On Fri, Sep 1, 2023, 2:47 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 04:20, John Cla
On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 8:52 AM John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 9:38 AM Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>> >> 128 bits would probably be enough information to program a Turing
>>> Machine to calculate the infinite series 4(1-1/3 +1/5 -1/7 +...)
On Fri, Sep 1, 2023, 9:16 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 8:41 AM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *> I think it may be possible actually, to use a mathematical argument to
>> disprove superdeterminism*
>>
>
> I'm not sure a mathematical proof that superdet
information and
variation to also determine and the subsequent 2^128 outcomes. The 2^128
outcomes are mathematically underdetermined by 128 prior measurements, and
so the system cannot be deterministic in the way superdeterminism proposes.
Jason
On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 7:26 AM John Clark wrote
Thank you John for your thoughts. I few notes below:
On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at 7:17 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 1:47 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *> At a high level, states of consciousness are states of knowledge,*
>>
>
> That is certainly true, but what
tes of
knowledge) would be strictly necessary for intelligence to evolve.
Jason
--
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+unsu
,
they heat from the outside in.
Jason
On Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 7:30 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 12:15 AM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List
> wrote:
>
> *> means of survival, so this looks like evidence to me that you may be
>> correct? *
>>
f he means all particles get lighter, by what mechanism? How have stars
and chemistry remained stable over time if particles get lighter? That
means chemical bonds lose energy, and atoms get bigger, but we've had DNA
based life for billions of years, the chemistry must have been stable over
th
constraints money, borrowing, or interest rates.
Jason
On Sat, Jun 3, 2023, 6:53 PM John Clark wrote:
> I have a theory about interest rates and I'd like to know what those who
> know more about economics than I do think about it.
>
> When it comes to economic forecasting the genera
on of the necessity of food
for robotic or virtual bodies which may replace our existing ones.
- The replacement of solar energy as a significant or the cheapest source
of energy as new reactor designs are created.
Jason
>
> On 6/3/2023 8:52 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> I have a theory ab
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 9:16 AM Terren Suydam
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 6:00 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 23, 2023, 4:14 PM Terren Suydam
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 2:27 PM Ja
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 9:05 AM Terren Suydam
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 5:47 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 23, 2023, 3:50 PM Terren Suydam
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 1:46 PM Jas
On Thu, May 25, 2023, 9:43 AM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 21:28, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 25, 2023, 12:30 AM Stathis Papaioannou
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 13:
On Thu, May 25, 2023, 12:30 AM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 13:59, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2023, 9:56 PM Stathis Papaioannou
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 11
On Wed, May 24, 2023, 9:56 PM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 11:48, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >An RNG would be a bad design choice because it would be extremely
>> unreliable. However, as a thought experiment, it could work. If the visua
On Wed, May 24, 2023, 9:32 PM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 06:46, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 12:20 PM Stathis Papaioannou
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 24 May 2023 at
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 12:20 PM Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 21:56, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2023, 3:20 AM Stathis Papaioannou
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 24 May 2023 at
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 11:12 AM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/23/2023 10:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2023, 1:15 AM Stathis Papaioannou
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 24 May 2023 at 04:03, Jason Resch wrote:
>&g
On Wed, May 24, 2023, 5:35 AM John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 1:37 AM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *> By substituting a recording of a computation for a computation, you
>> replace a conscious mind with a tape recording of the prior behavior of a
>> consci
1 - 100 of 2475 matches
Mail list logo
