tem 2). In order to talk to
you I have to make the same mistakes as you and I won't do that.
Look. I am so over this. Just forget I ever said anything.
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 15 May 2015, at 00:44, colin hales wrote:
>
> Your suggestio
h?
I mentioned my agnostic views.
Greetings
John Mikes
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:40 PM, colin hales wrote:
Perhaps better
All posited (so far) scientific TOE are actually wrongly named. They would be
correctly named:
"Theories predicting how the universe appears to an assumed
nym.
>
> :-)
>
> On 15 May 2015 at 09:32, John Mikes wrote:
>
>> Colin: wouldn't it fit to call "TOE" - Theory of Everything WE KNOW
>> ABOUT? or: Everything in our reach?
>> I mentioned my agnostic views.
>> Greetings
>> John Mikes
>>
😊
Perhaps better
All posited (so far) scientific TOE are actually wrongly named. They would be
correctly named:
"Theories predicting how the universe appears to an assumed scientific observer
inside it"
Or maybe
"Theories of everything except the scientific observer"
By Scientific obser
you deepend your connection to the establishment-science to get
the degree. I may call it adjustment, not necessarily a cave-in.
I still hold you in high esteem. Thanks for your post, I did not give up yet.
John Mikes
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Colin Hales wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 20
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:21 AM, LizR wrote:
> It also appears to me that the computing entity would not be conscious for
>> the same reason computed flight physics is not flight.
>>
>
> I don't have the benefit of thinking about this for ten years, but it does
> seem that there is a map/territor
Hi,
I've been watching this "if COMP is true then " discussion for over 10
years. In that time my thinking has evolved to the point where I can express
what COMP now looks like to me, from my perspective.
Comp appears to be trivially true.
That is, the resultant computing entity would be c
Really interesting!
Good to find someone that concurs with a one-at-a-time universe. I think this
will emerge as being right, in the end.
Thanks.
Colin
-Original Message-
From: "meekerdb"
Sent: ‎23/‎04/‎2015 5:36 AM
To: "EveryThing"
Subject: Origin of mathematics
Is mathematics neit
We can change things.
Everything these predatory self-interested oligarchs have (and their
soul-less, ethics-less zombie proxy humans ... corporations) only exists
because we believe it exists. The zombie apocalypse is happening as we speak!
And we allow it because we believe in zombies.
This
Yeah.. For about hmm Dozens of microseconds ... you had me... On the 2nd!
I experienced the qualia ... that frisson of misplaced credulousness that an
old fart like me needs every now and then 😊
Cheers
Colin
-Original Message-
From: "Russell Standish"
Sent: ‎2/‎04/‎2015 8:15 AM
T
Hi Folk,
A little more you may find interesting.
RE: The much-discussed arXiv paper
Maguire, Phil, Moser Philippe, Maguire, Rebecca and Griffith, Virgil 2014
'Is Consciousness Computable? Quantifying Integrated Information Using
Algorithmic Information Theory'.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.
Hi Russel,
1) Strong CT/Deutch...will look it up...Sounds like one of the
conflations in operation: confusing the natural world with some kind of
computer running rules, rather than something natural merely behaving
rule-ly to an observing scientist.
2) Re: angry popperians...the role of hum
(NC) a bit confusing. I guess that I
understand what you means but the term Computation sounds ambiguously,
because then it is completely unclear what it means in such a context.
Evgenii
On 07.06.2011 09:42 Colin Hales said the following:
Hi,
Hales, C. G. 'On the Status of Computational
should prefer (ii), because (i) is loaded with unjustified,
unproven presupposition and has >60 years of failure.
All other issues are secondary.
I start building this year.
cheers
Colin
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Colin,
On 07 Jun 2011, at 09:42, Colin Hales wrote:
Hi,
Hales, C. G.
meekerdb wrote:
Even an affiliation doesn't seem to help.
Brent
On 6/7/2011 1:49 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Colin,
Any chance that us non-university affiliated types can get a copy
of your paper?
Onward!
Stephen
-Original Message----- From: Colin Hales
Sent: Tuesday, June 0
Hi,
Hales, C. G. 'On the Status of Computationalism as a Law of Nature',
International Journal of Machine Consciousness vol. 3, no. 1, 2011. 1-35.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1793843011000613
The paper has finally been published. Phew what an epic!
cheers
Colin
--
You received this message
Hi all,
I was wondering if anyone out there knows of any papers that connect
computational processes to thermodynamics in some organized fashion. The
sort of thing I am looking for would have statements saying
cooling is (info/computational equivalent)
pressure is ..(info/computational equ
eamed up
with one of the worlds heavy hitters in the realm of the neurobiology
of consciousness (Koch).
cheers
colin hales
===
In my PhD I it took >150,000 hours of supercomputing to show that the EM
fields have a whole degree of freedom not in exis
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Colin Hales
wrote:
Can the behaviour of the neurons including the electric fields be
simulated? For example, is it possible to model what will happen in
the brain (and what output will ultimately go to the muscles via
peripheral
Stathis (Down below...)
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Colin Hales
wrote:
This means we are hooked into the external world in ways that are not
present in the peripheral nerves. Looking at the (nerves pulses) signals, it
is impossible to tell if they are
r. Well not quite. I think I am some kind of
neuroscientist now. Just handing my PhD in...I will build an AGI based
on choices. My research suggests that replacing the fields, emulating
the brain, is the way to go. That's why my PhD is all about how neurons
originate the endogenous fiel
gn
preference should be not to use (3) or (5) to create an AGI. Emulate,
not simulate. BE the thing, don't merely pretend to be the thing to an
observer. I have that level of certainty at least. I guess a word of
thanks is in order.
Thanks! :-)
Colin
David Nyman wrote:
On 1 February
hat 'acts as if' it generates an arbitrary
number of different U?
The COMP I talk about having refuted is in (i) or (ii) above.
I suspect this is not the COMP you are speaking of...
As far as I can tell we're not even on the same page. Maybe others here
are in a similar positio
Interleaved ...
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Jan 2011, at 06:27, ColinHales wrote:
Now say "humans are conscious? Prove it."
To which I say "COMP is true? Prove it"
Been around this loop many times. :-)
COMP is a solution of x -> ~Bx, like consciousness, and consistency.
If COMP is true,
Interleaved...
John Mikes wrote:
Hi, Colin,
I enjoyed your diatribe. (From time to time I accept some of your
ideas and even include them into my ways of thinking - which may be a
praise or a threat).
Question: Could you briefly identify your usage of "science" - even
"scientist"?
The f
Hi John,
Sorry to hear about your 2010. I hope that 2011 allows your flavour of
feist to resume here on 'everything'.
I am at the very end of my PhD writeup and have been more flaky than
usual here. I was amused to see that I appeared to be advocating any
sort of XYXism or to be an 'XYZist'.
everything" is conceived as converging on consistent
first-person narratives as a consequence of various kinds of "measure"
- a very rough analogy would be the emergence of all possible books in
Borges' "Library of Babel". What would be the analogous ideas in
your o
I'll just crawl off and fume for a while. I'll be OK soon enough! :-)
Colin Hales
produced, you haven't explained observation and you don't really
understand it>
ronaldheld wrote:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2198v1.pdf
Any comments?
Brent Meeker wrote:
On 10/23/2010 2:37 PM, Colin Hales wrote:
I am pretty sure that there is a profound misinterpretation and/or
unrecognized presupposition deeply embedded in the kinds of
discussion of which Van F and your reply and Bruno's fits. It's so
embedded that there
think the QM/MWI proponent can conceive of that
distinction. Perhaps it might be helpful if those readers try and
conceive of such a situation, just as an exercise..
cheers
colin hales
Bruno Marchal wrote:
HI Stephen,
Just a short reply to your post to Colin, and indirectly to your last
posts.
#x27;BEING', 'MEASUREMENT and 'EVIDENCE' and _then_ what you
can do with evidence.
There. Vent is complete. That's better. Phew!
:-)
Colin Hales.
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Friends,
Please check out the following paper by Bas C. van Fraassen for
ma
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Colin,
I think we have always agreed on this conclusion. We may differ on the
premises.
It just happen that I am using a special hypothesis, which is very
common, but not so well understood, and which is the digital mechanist
hypothesis.
I think things are more subtle t
mself from fragments received from 'reality and
indiviually colored to one's personal background and mental-built.
Now I have some remarks - not argumentative mostly (except for the
'Science of Quale') on that beautifully crafted (short!) writing that
reaped the award.
Here it go
hat the essay speaks to you in a way that helps you see this.
This is the position I am gradually building.
I am going to go so far as to formally demand a summit on the matter. I
believe things are that screwed up. 300 years of this confinement in the
(A) prison is long enough.
cheers
colin
short
(1500 words!) *
Enjoy.
Colin Hales
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-lis
Jason Resch wrote:
> Described in this article:
> http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2617
>
> "This summation of all paths, proposed in the 1960s by physicist
> Richard Feynman and others, is the only way to explain some of the
> bizarre properties of quantum particles, such as their
Hi,
Can you please send a .PDF or a .DOC
I can't read .DOCX and I can't upgrade my PC to read ituni rules... :-(
regards
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Colin,
>
> We agree on the conclusion. We disagree on vocabulary, and on the
> validity of your reasoning.
>
> Let us call I-comp the usual indexical mechanism discussed in this
> list (comp).
> Let us call m-comp the thesis that there is a primitive "natural
> world", a
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 2009/8/12 Colin Hales :
>
>> My motivation to kill COMP is purely aimed at bring a halt to the delusion
>> of the AGI community that Turing-computing will ever create a mind. They are
>> throwing away $millions based on a false belief. Their ex
te:
> Hi Colin,
>
> It seems that to me that until one understands the nature of the
> extreme Idealism that COMP entails, no arguement based on the physical
> will do...
>
> "I refute it thus!"
> -Dr. Johnson http://www.samueljohnson.com/re
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 10 Aug 2009, at 09:08, Colin Hales wrote:
>
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06 Aug 2009, at 04:37, Colin Hales wrote:
>>>
>>>> Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed
>>>> r
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 06 Aug 2009, at 04:37, Colin Hales wrote:
>
>> Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed
>> refutation of computationalism.
>> It's going through peer review at the moment.
>>
>> The basic problem that m
russell standish wrote:
> Nobody is suggesting that brains are Turing machines. All that is
> being suggested (by COMP) is that brains perform computations (and
> nothing but), hence can be perfectly emulated by a Turing machine, by
> virtue of the Church-Turing thesis.
>
"/Nobody is suggesti
ronaldheld wrote:
> As a formally trained Physicist, what do I accept? that Physics is
> well represented mathematically? That the Multiverse is composed of
> mathematical structures some of which represent physical laws? Or
> something else?
> Ronald
>
Brent Meeker wrote:
> Colin Hales wrote:
>
>> Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>> Colin Hales wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed
>>>> refutation of computationalism.
&
Rex Allen wrote:
> If computationalism is true, and computation is the source of
> conscious experience, then shouldn't we expect that what is
> ontologically real is the simplest possible universe that can develop
> and support physical systems that are Turing equivalent?
>
> Does our universe lo
Brent Meeker wrote:
> Colin Hales wrote:
>
>> Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed
>> refutation of computationalism.
>> It's going through peer review at the moment.
>>
>> The basic problem that most people fall fou
ition or a 'compute a model of the physics underlying cognition'.
Then an artificial scientist is a scioentist in the same sense that
artificial light is light.
R.I.P. COMP
=> Strong AI (a computer can be a mind) is false.
=> Weak AI (A computer model of cognition can never be actual c
ent on the truth of dogma X get their outcome
projections/expectations reviewed?
cheers
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send ema
David Nyman wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who responded to my initial sally on dreams and
> machines. Naturally I have arrogated the right to plagiarise your
> helpful comments in what follows, which is an aphoristic synthesis of
> my understanding of the main points that have emerged thus far. I
Brent Meeker wrote:
> Colin Hales wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> When I read quantum mechanics and listen to those invested in the many
>> places the mathematics leads, What strikes me is the extent to which the
>> starting point is mathematics. That is, the entire discu
b religiosity.
Can anyone else here see this cultural schism operating?
regards
Colin Hales
Jason Resch wrote:
> The following link shows convincingly that what one gains by accepting
> MWI is far greater than what one loses (an answer to the born
> probabilities)
>
> http://www.
ehaviour and represents the last thing
physicists seem to want to explain: /themselves/. A green field in which
it is obvious that cognition is most definitely not computation in the
'computation BY' sense.
Enjoy!
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You receiv
7;t analytically express it.
You have to compute it and slice it to observe it.
Enough for now!
cheers
colin hales
*ABSTRACT*. Our chronically impoverished explanatory capacity in respect
of P-consciousness is highly suggestive of a problem with science
itself, rather than its lack of acquisi
What you have here is a phenomenon which has been described a lot for 50
years. It appears in the literature in the descriptions of the
synchronous behaviour of crickets, cicadas and fireflies.
Eg:
D. E. Kim, "A spiking neuron model for synchronous flashing of
fireflies," Biosystems, vol. 76, p
The file. sorry use *Rejection 101.pdf*
enjoy!
colin
Colin Hales wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
> I feel your angst. The received view is a blunt and frightened beast,
> guarded by the ignorant and uncreative in wily protection of turf and
> co-conspirator. I recently did
Hi Bruno,
I feel your angst. The received view is a blunt and frightened beast,
guarded by the ignorant and uncreative in wily protection of turf and
co-conspirator. I recently did a powerpoint presentation called
"rejection 101". It sounds like you have been through exactly what I
have been th
t to distal natural world novelty. It is hoped that in opening a
discussion of a novel approach, the artificial intelligence community
may eventually find a viable contender for its long overdue scientific
basis.
cheers
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Y
n consciousness and fails
constantly (2000+ years)
then
c) still fails to let consciousness be evidence of whatever it is that
actually generates it
(c) is a kind of denial of the form you identify.
Therefore you have proved that scientists are self-aware (= conscious)
i.e. only people able to m
Hi,
Computationalsim pronounced dead here:
Bringsjord, S. (1999). The Zombie Attack on the Computational Conception
of Mind. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LIX(1), 41-69.
cheers
colin
Kim Jones wrote:
> A representation of a thing (say MGA) is as good (ie as authentic) as
> the thi
Kim Jones wrote:
> On 24/11/2008, at 1:50 PM, Colin Hales wrote:
>
>
>> It seems that the last thing physicists want to do is predict
>> themselves. They do absolutely "everything" except that. When they
>> say "everything" in a "Theory
Tom Caylor wrote:
> On Nov 23, 4:29 pm, Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "According to this article, the best we can do is to VIRTUALLY CONFIRM
>> something. But since reality is VIRTUAL, according to this VIRTUAL
>> CONFIRMATION, is not VIRTUAL
Kim Jones wrote:
>
> On 24/11/2008, at 10:29 AM, Colin Hales wrote:
>
>> OK. I was rowing my apparently virtual boat merrily down the stream.
>> But apparently that's not interesting enough. :-)
>
>
> It's more interesting when you get a barbershop quartet
ls). So the above sentence conflates
terms, which is why I thought you weren't serious.
Getting back in boat, assuming merrily mode. It's as if I am rowing,
downstream. :-)
cheers,
colin hales
Kim Jones wrote:
> Oh, somebody will stick their head up soon and disagree. Where wou
I knew it
"Row row row your boat
Gently down the stream
Merrily Merrily Merrily Merrily
Life is but a dream."
Is actually a law of nature...
cheers
Colin Hales
Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-va
Michael Rosefield wrote:
> And of course you could always add - all possible instances
> of
>
>
Yeah.. a new 'science of universe construction'? I wonder if there's a
name for something like that? unigenesis?
As I said in my post to Jesse:
- - -- - - - - -
is NOT underling reality, but a
his regime of 'SINGLE ASPECT SCIENCE' for no good reason. This is the
way the 'hard problem' remains hard.
I drew this state of affairs as a diagram in my paper that has been out
there for 2 years. I empirically observe scientists and I report
describing appearances and describing
structure are NOT the same set of descriptions. Dual aspect science is
thus empirically justified. Single aspect science (of the Bohmian or
anyotherian kind) is thus empirically refuted.
I hope I am making progress here... as a physics participant, you have
Brent Meeker wrote:
> Colin Hales wrote:
>
>> >From the "everything list" FYI
>>
>> Brent Meeker wrote:
>>
>>> Why would you take Stapp as exemplifying the state of QM? ISTM that the
>>> decoherence program plus Ever
ons, by an observer made of it".
/As scientists we haven't even begun to populate . We need to
start. The delusions that are in place in are far more
bizarre than any sane approach to a characterisation of reality that
involves populating a that is explanatory of P-consciousness.
/
O
that
of a taboo... then that PhD, to me, is a club membership certificate in
a bankrupt and deluded system. If I am expected to declare dual aspect
science wrong then somebody needs to tell me exactly why -- with real
critical arguments and logic, not the dogma of taboo.
The evidence for this
Hi Brian,
I was wondering if you could connect (in the paper) the maths with our
universe? As an example. What set operations or structures correspond to
the standard particle model entities, what constitutes a chemical
reaction or energy, what space is made of... that kind of thing. Maybe
thi
e... I have to get back to work.
cheers
colin hales
silky wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Colin Hales
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Invent an inorganic 'us'? A faulty, defunct evolutionary mistake? Nah!
>>
>
> But that&#x
ly use a break. The
AGI would be able to clean Earth up and then leave... they'll be much
better at space travel than us. Humans may or may not ever reach the
stars... but our AGI descendents will. Which is just as well...somebody
out there has to remember us and all the shit we did to o
Hi Folks,
I can't throw myself any further into this ... I have to get back in the
fray here. However - a couple of quick-ones for Brent and Bruno:
COL
> the instant the
> abstraction happens, from that moment on you know NOTHING about the
> current state of the distal environment...all you hav
ution of the order of nano-seconds worst case.. In the interim
it may be better to replace your brain with my chips...slowly...and then
the rest of the hardware - slowly... you'd end up 100% inorganic, but
you would NOT be a COMP entity. This is more doable in the shorter term.
So I ca
colin (back to Jesse and the closer on COMP)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sep 2, 1:56 pm, Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> */Eliezer/*'s hubris about a Bayesian approach to intelligence is
>> nothing more than the usual '
to work with. An artefact based on this may survive in
a habitat... but that is NOT science.
Sothere's no scientist here. (BTW IO = input/output).
cheers,
colin
Jesse Mazer wrote:
> Colin Hales wrote:
>
>
>> Computationalism is FALSE in the sense that it cannot be used to co
Hi Marc,
*/Eliezer/*'s hubris about a Bayesian approach to intelligence is
nothing more than the usual 'metabelief' about a mathematics... or about
computation... meant in the sense that "cognition is computation", where
computation is done BY the universe (with the material of the universe
us
s, a true
cosmology should make predictions in brain material that shall be
otherwise unavailable. Only when such predictions are found shall signs
of a real explanation (of scientists) be created. None of the
discussions in cosmology do that nor have they ever done that.
regards,
Colin Hales
rule of the game'.
===
PRACTICAL NOTE:
Having any belief in the existence or otherwise of an external reality
changes nothing. It is irrelevant.
You may not accept various aspects of this argument, but I think you may
agree that it reveals inconsistent belief systems
erested in the discussion and might appreciate a
critical gnaw on a juicy bone. To me, a 'Theory of Everything' and the
process of sorting out consciousness are necessarily unified scientific
activities. In that unification the answers await us.
regards,
Colin Hales
===
down a wys..
===
Russell Standish wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 03:47:19PM +1000, Colin Hales wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> RUSSEL
>>> All I can say is that I don't understand your distinction. You have
>> introduce
. Business as usual.
If Galen Strawson is setting fire to the magical emergence campGOOD!
I have an X proposition that delivers what looks like panpsychism, but
isn't actuallywell... if X is a principle that applies universally
(something that exists at all spatial scales... inher
Dear Brent,
If you had the most extravagent MRI machine in history, which trapped
complete maps of all electrons, neuclei and any photons and then plotted
them out - you would have a 100% complete, scientifically acquired
publishable description and in that description would be absolutely no
predi
ME, an elemental fluctuation, is 'NOT ME' (the rest of the
universe).
The ecitable cell dance is the only dance that has it's own story
independent of the underlying MON_STUFF organisational layers. That is the
only place where the net exertions o
Hi,
RUSSEL
> All I can say is that I don't understand your distinction. You have
introduced a new term "necessary primitive" - what on earth is that? But
I'll let this pass, it probably isn't important.
COLIN
Oh no you don't!! It matters. Bigtime...
Take away the necessary primitive: no 'qualit
Hi,
I am going to have to be a bit targetted in my responses I am a TAD
whelmed at the moment.
COLIN
>> 4) Belief in 'magical emergence' qualitative novelty of a kind
utterly unrelated to the componentry.
RUSSEL
> The latter clause refers to "emergence" (without the "magical"
> qual
ll
those centuries!!"
My formula for machine consciousness validation stands as a valid
scientifically testable proposition.
The real test will happen within 5 years - a nest of tiny little benchtop
artificial scientists in the form of chips with a novel architecture -
that will scientifically demonst
tructure literally
the third person view of qualia. This is not new. What is new is
understanding the kind of universe we inhabit in which that is necessarily
the case. It's right there, in the cells. Just ask the right question of
them. There's nothing
Hi Stathis,
Colin
>The bogus logic I detect in posts around this area...
>'Humans are complex and are conscious'
>'Humans were made by a complex biosphere'
>therefore
>'The biosphere is conscious'
>
>
Stathis
That conclusion is spurious, but it is the case that non-conscious
e
rm).
Computers process information. Therefore I believe the computer is
conscious.
B) Human cortical qualia are a necessary condition for the scientific
behaviour and unless the complete suite of the physics involved in that
process is included in the computer, the computer is not conscious.
Which fo
Hi again,
Russel:
I'm sorry, but you worked yourself up into an incomprehensible
rant. Is evolution creative in your view or not? If it is, then there is
little point debating definitions, as we're in agreement. If not, then we
clearly use the word creative in different senses, and perhaps defint
a human made of the ratchet motors).
That's how you unpack this discussion.
cheers
colin hales
BTW thanks.I now have the BAAS paper on .PDF
Baas, N. A. (1994) Emergence, Hierarchies, and Hyperstructures. In C. G.
Langton (ed.). Artificial life III : proceedings of the Workshop on
Artifi
ou've made your point.
I'd like to think that I have. My AI/Human scientist face-off stands as is
and I defy anyone to come up with something practical/better that isn't
axiomatically flawed. Everything is scientific evidence of something.
Scientists are no exception.
cheers,
colin
ou've made your point.
I'd like to think that I have. My AI/Human scientist face-off stands as is
and I defy anyone to come up with something practical/better that isn't
axiomatically flawed. Everything is scientific evidence of something.
Scientists are no exception.
cheers,
col
'learn how to learn how to
learn".
If the computer/scientist can match the human/scientist...it's as
conscious as a human. It must be.
cheers
colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Hi,
What they did was hook X million simple neural soma models to each other
with Y000 models of synaptic interconnects. Very useful for investigating
large-scale dynamicsbutthe leap to 'mouse brain'?.presumptuous
I think. Perhaps... 'Mouse-brain scale idealised connectionist model'
wo
t
any of it... but I can guarantee you'll get answers if you keep looking at
it. The trick is to let go of the idea that 'fundamental building blocks'
of nature are a meaningful concept (we are tricked into the belief be our
perceptual/epistemological goals) ...
cheers,
colin hales
gards,
Colin Hales
(EC still brewing!)
> -Original Message-
> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:23 PM
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Numbers,
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
