On 15 Jun 2002, at 14:27, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> No the issue concerns any conscious "program", rather than any
> particular one. The fact that there are vastly more amoeba than homo
> sapiens tends to argue against amoebae being consious.
>
This remind me of Jack Vance novels "Alastor".
On 18 Apr 2002, at 20:03, H J Ruhl wrote:
>
> 5) I do not see universes as "splitting" by going to more than one next
> state. This is not necessary to explain anything as far as I can see.
>
> 6) Universes that are in receipt of true noise as part of a state to state
> transition are in effec
On 15 Apr 2002, at 16:17, Juergen Schmidhuber wrote:
> I am also interested in pointers to early fiction. For decades
> SF authors have been writing about downloading minds onto machines.
> And when I was a kid in the 1970s (?) I heard a fictional play on the
> radio (maybe British?) about resea
On 22 Jan 2002, at 23:28, H J Ruhl wrote:
> > >
> > > I do not see that at all. Why does it need a history? All it needs
is
> > the
> > > capability of finding a next state.
> >
> >It doesn't need the capacity to find the next state. If it has that
> >capacity, then the history is computable
Hi,
Instead of replying too quickly to a mail, maybe I should introduce myself
before.
I'm a 28 years old network software engineer.
I have exchanged some mails with Bruno Marchal quite a long time ago, after
an article in "Pour la Science" (french edition of "Scientific American".)
I also h
On 15 Jan 2002, at 11:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> One of the things that strikes me as most peculiar and unexpected about the
> universe is this: that it is apparently finite and inhomogeneous in time,
> yet infinite and homogeneous in space.
>
The universe is finite :
My short term memory l
6 matches
Mail list logo
