On 2016-12-28 23:56, John Mikes wrote:
I do not intend to participate in the discussion of this topic fpr
more than one reason:
1. I am agnostic, so I just DO NOT KNOW what (who?) that "GOD" may be.
*You just have to ask God what she is. Then she will answer. But it
may take two years to
On 2016-12-26 10:52, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 25 December 2016 at 19:40, Torgny Tholerus <mailto:tor...@dsv.su.se>> wrote:
I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And
my subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses.
When I pray, I t
On 2016-12-26 00:09, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And my
subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses.
When I pray, I talk to my own subconscious. Then my subconscious
talks
2016-12-25 03:07 skrev John Clark:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> usage says that "God" means an immortal person with
supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be worshipped.
> That's the Christian use
. Why do atheists insist so much we use the chr
LizR skrev 2014-10-01 01:44:
On 1 October 2014 04:23, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
mailto:multiplecit...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Ultrafinitism then: "set of all numbers is finite" and whatever
weird logic they need to have numbers obey some weirder upper
limit, and I heard they issue fines a
s nor computers can be conscious.
(The alternative: Computers, but not humans can be conscious, is not
needed...))
--
Torgny Tholerus
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
n FOR, I can conceive that I wake up and realize that
> quark, planet, galaxies and even my body were not real. I cannot
> conceive that I wake up and realize that my consciousness is not real.
>
When I woke up this morning, I realized th
Bruno Marchal skrev:
>
> On 22 Jul 2009, at 14:12, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>> What do you think about the GoL-universes? You can look at some of
>> those at http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/ . If you have an initial
>> condition and you have an unlimited board, t
Bruno Marchal skrev:
> Le 22-juil.-09, à 10:27, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
>
>
> Rex Allen skrev:
>
> Brent:
>
> Do these mathematical objects "really" exist? I'd say they
> have
> logico-math
ical objects does not exist in our universe, in this form of
existence. You can not find the "17" object anywhere inside our universe.
Then we have the general form of existence saying that our universe
exists because it is a mathematical possibility.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~--
ral number is illegal, because
you are there doing an illegal deduction, you are there doing an illegal
substitution, just the same as in the deductions below with the sets A
and B. You are there substituting an object that is not part of the
domain of the All quatificator.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--
Torgny Tholerus
>
> 2009/6/13 Torgny Tholerus :
>
>> Quentin Anciaux skrev:
>>
>>> 2009/6/13 Torgny Tholerus :
>>>
>>>
>>>> What do you think about the following deduction? Is it legal or illegal?
>>>> --
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> 2009/6/13 Torgny Tholerus :
>
>> What do you think about the following deduction? Is it legal or illegal?
>> ---
>> Define the set A of all sets as:
>>
>> For all x holds that x belongs to A if and only if x is
ly if A is a set.
And we know that A is a set. So from this we can deduce:
A beongs to A.
---
Quentin, what do you think? Is this deduction legal or illegal?
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you a
justification for.
What do you mean by "some particular symbol-string"?
I suppose that you mean by this is: If you take any particular
symbol-string from this universe, then no one will ever have cause to be
unsure about whether this symbol-string belongs in this universe. So
you are de
u have
> a third alternative besides spelling out every member or giving an
> abstract rule?
You have to spell out every member. Because in a *rule* you are
(implicitely) using this type of "universe", and you will then get a
circular definition. When y
about.
For you to be able to use the word "all", you must define the "domain"
of that word. If you do not define the domain, then it will be
impossible for me and all other humans to understand what you are
talking about.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~
implicite "all": The full sentence
would be: For all n in the universe hold that n is a natural number if
n=1 or if n is equal to some other natural number+1. And you may now be
able to understand, that if the number of objects in the universe is
finite, then this sentence wil
n you need to provide a
> definition of "natural number" that would explain why this is the case.
It depends upon how you define "natural number". If you define it by: n
is a natural number if and only if n belongs to N, the set of all
natural numbers, then of course BI
Kory Heath skrev:
> On Jun 4, 2009, at 8:27 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
>> How do you handle the Russell paradox with the set of all sets that
>> does
>> not contain itself? Does that set contain itself or not?
>>
>> My answer is that that set does no
Brian Tenneson skrev:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Torgny Tholerus <mailto:tor...@dsv.su.se>> wrote:
>
>
> Brian Tenneson skrev:
> >
> >
> > Torgny Tholerus wrote:
> >> It is impossible to create a set where the s
Brian Tenneson skrev:
>
>
> Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>> It is impossible to create a set where the successor of every element is
>> inside the set, there must always be an element where the successor of
>> that element is outside the set.
>>
> I disagree.
an being in the
future. Amongst all those explicit numbers there will be one that is
the largest. But this "largest number" is not an explicit number.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed
N of natural numbers. And from that you can define the
successor operator. The value set of the successor operator will be a
new set, that contains one more element than the set N of natural
numbers. This new element is BIGGEST+1, that is strictly bigger than
all natural numbers.
--
Torgny
atement is true. Because if you call the Biggest
natural number B, then you can describe N as = {1, 2, 3, ..., B}. If
you take the complement of N you will get the empty set. This set have
no least element, but still N has a biggest element.
In your statement you are presupposing that N has n
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> 2009/6/3 Torgny Tholerus :
>
>> Bruno Marchal skrev:
>>
>>> On 02 Jun 2009, at 19:43, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bruno Marchal skrev:
>>>>
>>>>
Bruno Marchal skrev:
> On 02 Jun 2009, at 19:43, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
>
>> Bruno Marchal skrev:
>>
>>> 4) The set of all natural numbers. This set is hard to define, yet I
>>> hope you agree we can describe it by the infin
1 belongs to the set of natural numbers,
that is does N+1 belongs to {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}?
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, se
Bruno Marchal skrev:
> On 08 May 2009, at 19:15, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
>> Bruno Marchal skrev:
>>
>>> On 07 May 2009, at 18:29, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes it is right. There is no infinity of natural numbers. But
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> Hi,
>
> 2009/5/8 Torgny Tholerus :
>
>> I was an ultrafinitist before, but I have changed my mind. Now I accept
>> that you can say that the natural numbers are unlimited. I only deny
>> actual infinities. The set of all natural numbers
Bruno Marchal skrev:
> On 07 May 2009, at 18:29, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
>
>> Bruno Marchal skrev:
>>
>>
>>> you are human, all right?
>>>
>> I look exactly as a human. When you look at me, you will not be
>> able to
Bruno Marchal skrev:
> On 06 May 2009, at 11:35, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
>
>> Bruno Marchal skrev:
>>
>>> Someone unconscious cannot doubt either ... (A zombie can only fake
>>> doubts)
>>>
>> Yes, you are right. I can only f
our own consciousness, by
> becoming someone else you can't identify with.
I can say "yes" to the doctor, because it will not be any difference for
me, I will still be a zombie afterwards...
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You receive
alculus ), that look like exactly
what I am looking for. The Umbral calculus seems to be a good candidate
for a tool for handling discrete space-time!
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gr
Torgny Tholerus skrev:
>
> What I want to know is what result you will get if you start from the
> axiom that *everything in universe is finite*.
>
One important function in Quantum Theory is the harmonic oscillator. So
I want to know: What is the corresponding function
t think of me. I
am an entity that have all the appearance of a human, but I have no
consciousness...
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post
Torgny Tholerus skrev:
>
> Exercise: Show that the extended Leibniz rule in the discrete
> mathematics: D(f*g) = f*D(g) + D(f)*g + D(f)*D(g), is correct!
>
Another way to see both form of the Leibniz rule is in the graphical set
theory, where you represent the sets by circle
f(0)*g(0), f(1)*g(1), f(2)*g(2), ... , f(N-1)*g(N-1)].
and to apply a function f on a function g then becomes:
f(g) = [f(g(0)), f(g(1)), f(g(2)), ... , f(g(N-1))].
Exercise: Show that the extended Leibniz rule in the discrete
mathematics: D(f*g) = f*D(g) + D(f)*g + D(f)*D(g), is
S-1, so D(x(n)) = x(n+1) - x(n).
What do you think, is this a good starting point for handling the
mathematics of the discrete space-time?
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ev
You do not need anything continuous. When you look at a movie, you are
shown 24 pictures every second, but you feel like it is a continuous
movie. But in reality it is just 24 discrete events every second.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You r
The time is just a direction in that static structure.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To uns
Bruno Marchal skrev:
> Hi Torgny,
>
> Le 29-févr.-08, à 15:25, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
>
>
>>
>> I have just tested to upload a file to the group (PofSTorgny1.doc).
>> You
>> can try to see if you can see that file. (You have to log in to Google
&
e that file. (You have to log in to Google
groups first.)
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
> On Nov 28, 9:56 pm, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> You only need models of cellular automata. If you have a model and
>> rules for that model, then one event will follow after another event,
>> according to the
Bruno Marchal skrev:
>
>
> Le 29-nov.-07, à 17:22, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
>
> There is a difference between "unlimited" and "infinite". "Unlimited"
> just says that it has no limit, but everything is still finite. If
> you
>
Jesse Mazer skrev:
>
>
>
>> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:55:20 +0100
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>> As soon as you say "the set of ALL numbers", then you are forced to
>> define the word ALL here. And for every definition, you are forced to
>> introduce a "limit". It is not possible
Jesse Mazer skrev:
>
>
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>> As soon as you talk about "the set N", then you are making a "closure"
>> and making that set finite.
>>
>
>
> Why is that? How do you define the word "set"?
>
>
> The only possible way to talk about
>
>> something wit
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> Le Thursday 29 November 2007 18:52:36 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
>
>> Quentin Anciaux skrev:
>>
>>
>>> What is the production rules of the "no"set R ?
>>>
>> How do you de
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> Le Thursday 29 November 2007 18:25:54 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
>
>>
>> As soon as you talk about "the set N", then you are making a "closure"
>> and making that set finite.
>>
>
> Ok then
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> Le Thursday 29 November 2007 17:22:59 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
>
>>
>> There is a difference between "unlimited" and "infinite". "Unlimited"
>> just says that it has no limit, but everything is still fini
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> Hi,
>
> Le Wednesday 28 November 2007 09:56:17 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
>
>>
>> You only need models of cellular automata. If you have a model and
>> rules for that model, then one event will follow after another event,
>>
Bruno Marchal skrev:
>
>
> Le 28-nov.-07, à 09:56, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
>
> You only need models of cellular automata. If you have a model
> and rules for that model, then one event will follow after another
> event, according to the rules. And after t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
>
>> When I talk about "pure mathematics" I mean that kind of mathematics you
>> have in GameOfLife. There you have "gliders" that move in the
>> GameOfLife-universe, and these gliders interact with eachother when they
>> meet. These gliders you can see as physical
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
On Nov 23, 8:49 pm, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think that everything is reducible to physical substances and
properties. And I think that all of physics is reducible to pure
mathematics...
You can't have it bot
like
bosons (fotons) and the end of the open strings behave just like
fermions (electrons).
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
>
> As far as I tell tell, all of physics is ultimately
> geometry. But as we've pointed out on this list many times, a theory
> of physics is *not* a theory of everything, since it makes the
> (probably false) assumption that everything is reducible to physical
> substan
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 20-nov.-07, à 23:39, Barry Brent wrote :
You're saying that, just because you can *write down* the missing
sequence (at the beginning, middle or anywhere else in the list), it
follows that there *is* no missing sequence. Looks pretty wrong to me.
Cant
meekerdb skrev:
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
An ultrafinitist comment to this:
==
You can add this complementary sequence to the end of the list. That
will make you have a list with this complementary sequence included.
But then you can make a new complementary sequence, that is
Bruno Marchal skrev:
>
> But infinite ordinals can be different, and still have the same
> cardinality. I have given examples: You can put an infinity of linear
> well founded order on the set N = {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}.
> The usual order give the ordinal omega = {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}. Now omega+1
> is
Bruno Marchal skrev:
But then the complementary sequence (with the 0 and 1
permuted) is
also well defined, in Platonia or in the mind of God(s)
0 1 1 0
1 1 ...
But this infinite sequence cannot be in the list, above.
The "God" in question has to ackonwledge that.
The complemen
Bruno Marchal skrev:
>
> To sum up; finite ordinal and finite cardinal coincide. Concerning
> infinite "number" there are much ordinals than cardinals. In between
> two different infinite cardinal, there will be an infinity of ordinal.
> We have already seen that omega, omega+1, ... omega+omega
Torgny Tholerus skrev:
Now you define a new concept INNFINITE, that is defined by:
If you have a bijection from all visible numbers of a set S, to all
visible numbers of a true subset of S, then you say that the set S in
INNFINITE.
Then you can use this concept INNFINITE, and you
Torgny Tholerus skrev:
If you define the set of all natural numbers N, then you can pull out
the biggest number m from that set. But this number m has a different
"type" than the ordinary numbers. (You see that I have some sort of
"type theory" for the numbers.) Th
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 15-nov.-07, à 14:45, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
Do you have the big-black-cloud interpretation of "..."?
By that I
mean that there is a big black cloud at the end of the visible part of
universe,
Concerning what I am trying to conve
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 15-nov.-07, à 14:45, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
But m+1 is not a number.
This means that you believe there is a finite sequence of "s" of the
type
A =
s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
Hi,
Le Thursday 15 November 2007 14:45:24 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
What do you mean by "each" in the sentence "for each natural number"? How
do you define ALL natural numbers?
There is a nat
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 14-nov.-07, à 17:23, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
What do you mean by "..."?
Are you asking this as a student who does not understand the math, or
as a philospher who, like an ultrafinist, does not believe in the
potential infinite
ove that each x in N has a corresponding number 2*x in E?
If m is the biggest number in N, then there will be no corresponding
number 2*m in E, because 2*m is not a number.
> Now, instead of taking this at face value like Cantor, Galileo will
> instead t
uot;models" (cf type 1 multi-realty of Tegmark).
The type 1 multi-reality of Tegmark does not require infinity. The
type 1 multi-reality is true also in a finite universe, that is
*enough* big...
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this
John Mikes skrev:
>
> JM: Then what makes them into a continuous 'string'? OR: do those
> individual points arrange in unassigned directions they just wish? If
> they only fluctuate by themselves, what reference do they
> (individually) follow to be callable 'string' -'fluctuate' - or just
> "
John Mikes skrev:
1.- Q: What are light and fermions?
A:
Light is a fluctuation of closed strings of arbitrary sizes.
Fermions are ends of open strings.
2.- Q: Where do light and fermions come from?
A:
Light and fermions come from the collective motions of string-like
(From the swedish Allting List:)
The discrete space-time is a liquid. This explains why the space is
isomorph in all directions.
The one that discovered that the space-time is a liquid, was Xiao-Gang
Wen (Home Page: http://dao.mit.edu/~wen ). He has found that elementary
particles are not t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
>
> (7) From (3) mathematical concepts are objectively real. But there
> exist mathematical concepts (inifinite sets) which cannot be explained
> in terms of finite physical processes.
How can you prove that infinite sets exists?
--
Tor
.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROT
Brent Meeker skrev:
> Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>>
>> That is exactly what I wanted to say. You don't need to have a complete
>> description of arithmetic. Our universe can be described by doing a
>> number of computations from a finite set of rules. (To g
Brent Meeker skrev:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
...
Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.
Assuming comp, I don&#
?
>
Our universe has nothing to do with different models of our universe. A
model is more like a picture of our universe. You can make a model of a
GoL-universe with red balls, or you can make a model with black dots,
but still there will hold the same relations in both thes
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
Bruno Marchal skrev:
I agree with you (despite a notion as "universe" is
not primitive in my
opinion, unless you mean it a bit like the logician's notion of model
per
t is a non-reflexive world, I can not
see anything reflexive in that universe.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email t
ules of our universe decide what our
universe will look like tomorrow.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 05-juil.-07, à 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
David Nyman skrev:
You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and
important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'.
1. Th
then B-Torgny will be interviewing B-David in the B-Universe. Because
everything that happens in A-Universe will also happen in B-Universe.
All objects in A-Universe obey the laws of physics, and all objects in
B-Universe obey the same laws, so the same things will happen in both
universes.
is not
dependent of the A-Universe. What we see when we look at the Wikipedia
page is just a picture of a part of this GoL-universe.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everythin
s with observers, and we
are specially interested in our own universe. But otherwise there is
noting special with our universe.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything Li
here is no observer integral to that
Universe.
The same is true about the B-Universe. You can look at it as an
outside observer.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything L
about how to
spell that word (where to put all those "h":s...), so I included the
thoughts in "all that kind of stuff". The B-Universe should not include
any thouths(!). The B-Universe should be a strictly materialistic Universe.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~---
-Universe pushes the same buttons on
their computers as we do in our A-Universe.
Questions:
Is B-Universe possible?
If we interview an object in B-Universe, what will that object answer,
if we ask it: "Are you conscious?"?
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--
subscribe to or know of other
> justifications I would be interesting in hearing it.
>
Both justifications are true. All mathematical possible universes
exist. (Game of Life is one possibility...) But this theory doesn't
say anything about our universe. So the informat
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
On Thursday 28 June 2007 16:52:12 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Consciouslike behaviour is good for a species to survive. Therefore
human beings show that type of behaviour.
I don't know what is consciouslike behaviour without consciousness i
s to survive. Therefore
human beings show that type of behaviour.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
>
> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>> What you call "the subjective experience of first person" is just some
>> sort of behaviour. When you claim that you have "the subjective
>> experience
>> of first person", I c
computer, you can see that there is no "subjective
experience", there are just a lot of electrical fenomena interacting
with each other.
There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
person experience.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~--
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> 2007/6/14, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> If a rock shows the same behavior as a human being, then you should be able
>> to use the same words ("know", believe", "think") to describe this
>> behaviour.
&
in
something. If the rock behaves as if it has thought, then you can say
that the rock has thought.
If a rock shows the same behavior as a human being, then you should be
able to use the same words ("know", believe", "think") to describe this
behaviour.
--
Torgny Tholeru
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 07-juin-07, à 15:47, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
What is the philosophical term for persons like me, that
totally deny
the existence of the consciousness?
An eliminativist.
"Eliminativist" is not a good term for persons like me, because that
term im
del of self in the
> world.
>
Yes, I simpy deny the separate existence of something called
'consciousness'.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything Li
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
What is the subjective experience then?
The "subjective experience" is just some sort of behaviour. You can
make computers show the same sort of behavior, if the computers are
enough complicated.
--
Torgny Tholerus
On 6/8/07, Torgny
Tholerus <[EM
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
On Friday 08 June 2007 17:37:06 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
What is the problem?
If a computer behaves as if it knows anything, what is the problem with
that? That type of behaviour increases the probability for the computer
to survive, so the natural
behaviour increases the probability for the computer
to survive, so the natural selection will favour that type of behaviour.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 07-juin-07, à 15:47, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
When I look at you (in 3rd person view), I see that you
are
constructed in exactly the same way as I am. So I know why you say
that you are conscious. I know nothing sure about you, but the most
probable conclusion is
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
