-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brent Meeker
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:52 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test
Colin Hales
, Solipsist Scientist
Copyright(c) 2006. Colin Hales. All rights reserved.
-
I am a solipsist scientist in that I accept that my mind, which is producing
the dialogue you now read, is the one and only conclusively proven mind and
possibly the only mind. My
in-denial
because none of them realise it.because they are not doing something
they dont know they are not doing.
Please read the whole thing.
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Brent Meeker:
Colin Hales wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou
snip
Maybe this is a copout, but I just don't think it is even logically
possible to explain what consciousness
*is* unless you have it. It's like the problem of explaining vision to a
blind man: he might be the world's
greatest
it they are welcome... just email me. Or perhaps I
could put it in the google forum somewhere... it can do that, can't it?
BTW: The 'what it is like' of a Turing machine = what it is like to be a
tape and tape reader, regardless of what is on the tape. 'tape_reader_ness',
I assume... :-)
Regards,
Colin
... I think I might be a world expert in zombies yes, that's
better.
:-)
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-list
!an answer...
btw...I'm thinking of writing a short paper on the long overdue death of the
solipsism argument and the 'no evidence for subjective experience' dogma
I'd like to erect a grave-stone here on the everything list! R.I.P.
:-)
cheers,
colin hales
is not observable is completely absolutely wrong. We
observe consciousness permanently. It's all we ever do! It's just not within
the phenomenal fields, it IS the phenomenal fields.
Got it?
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
that I'd stop constantly coming
across signs of the aberrant beliefs in scientific discoursenot just
here on this list but all around meso pervasive and s wrong.
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed
consciousness is invisible to realise that that is completely utterly wrong
and that as a result of thinking like that, valuable evidence as to the
nature of the universe is being discarded for no reason other than habit and
culture and discipline blindness.
Colin Hales
to formulate the laws T. The system is
quite consistent and empirically backed throughout.
Cheers
Colin Hales
t0 Notes:
Please note that the detail included in these notes is not intended to be
complete or even appropriately configured. It is merely intended to be a
prototype - as starting point
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
Hi,
A lot of the dialog below is a mismatch of ideas which indicates that I
have underestimated the degree of difficulty to be expected in getting
the
If they are different substructures within a further (different)
structure, they are also unified, in that
and T' equally. Natural laws in T' (future) will account for structures that
generate the qualia that are used to formulate the laws T. The system is
quite consistent and empirically backed throughout.
Cheers
Colin Hales
t0 Notes:
Please note that the detail included in these notes is not intended
for both T
and T' equally. Natural laws in T' (future) will account for structures that
generate the qualia that are used to formulate the laws T. The system is
quite consistent and empirically backed throughout.
Cheers
Colin Hales
t0 Notes:
Please note that the detail included in these notes
.
I'd recommend spending time working on structures that 'look like' QM when
you are part of the structure.
Make sense? I'll keep saying this until it sinks in. Somebody other than me
has to see this!
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
LZ:
Colin Hales wrote:
The underlying structure unifies the
whole system. Of course you'll
get some impact via the causality of the
structurevia the deep structure right down into
the very fabric of space.
In a very real way the existence of
'mysterious observer
. Parsimony
demands we assume 'something' and then investigate it. Having done that we
need to hold that very same 'something' responsible for all the other
'seeming' delivered by qualia.
Seeming sounds great until you try and conduct a scientific study of the
'seeming' system.
Colin Hales
producing people/observers who can define words like
physicalism, which is kind of interesting, isn't it?
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send
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-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
, but the rate/depth to which they are
analysed. A high novelty environment means faster/more brain process, time
apparently goes slowly (eg during an accident). In a low novelty environment
the brain analysis rate/depth drops. Time appears to go more quickly.
Cheers
Colin Hales
of a physics of qualia)
That's as complicated as it needs to be.
I think you and I are on the same wavelength here.
Speaking of coffee . I'm off!
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
David Nyman:
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:20 AM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: Are First Person prime?
George Levy wrote:
Colin Hales remarks seem to agree with what I say. However, I do not
deny the existence of a third person perspective. I only say that it is
secondary
. WE are
computations within it. We can only ever acquire data about it from the
perspective of being in it.
Maybe you're not talking about the same universe as me. We're trying to get
to grips with our universe, yes? I don't get it. Then again I seem not to
get a lot. :-)
Colin hales
is a communicable 1st
person perspective that yet another 'first person perspective' can find if
it looks. No-one ever has a 'third person' perspective. Ernest Nagel named a
book after it: 'the view from nowhere'. If 3rd person does not exist, then
1st person is all there is left, isn't it?
Colin
missing something...
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-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send
and implicit to the reality of the
universe (whatever it is, it is it!) then the abstraction throws it away.
Cheers
Colin hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post
Denton, The Primordial Emotions:
The dawning of consciousness, Oxford University Press. 2005
(Bruno: it came out first in French!)
That help?
Colin Hales
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything
Hi,
[ALL]
Lee, I seem to have miss-attributed the source of my guffaw that lead to my
little outburst to Bruno. Apologies to all as appropriate... :-)
[John Mikes]
Brent, Colin and Bruno:
I had my decade-long struggle on 3-4 discussion lists (~psych and ~Physx)
about objective reality being
Hi Folks,
A bit tardy..catching up...
An early cut debut of this film was played at the quantum mind
conference in March 2003. I saw it
Came away feeling like someone was lecturing me about a quantum
mechanical religion/cult. I don't know how the official version was, but
we were all asked
re 'Process Philosophy' and a 'Process Physics' to
go with it. Listen to it.
How's that for a sweeping flood over the whole issue!
cheers
Colin Hales
* Stirring the pot a little more vigorously than usual*
Bruno Marchal
At 23:35 03/06/03 +1000, Colin Hales wrote:
Dear Folks,
Once again I find myself fossicking at the boundaries and need to
ask
one of those questions. My first experience with an asker of such a
question was in the last couple of years at high school. I'll tell
you about
an arrow at this one thing I have described. I am
at the end and I find... Nothing or rather, NOT thing. It is why I
am here, asking my stupid question.
So. Anyone care to comment on the ontological status of 'not thing'?
Regardless, it's been fun writing this.
cheers,
Colin Hales
it to death.
I conclude that I am out on a novel but breezy little speculative
ismuth at the frontier of knowledge. I'm starting to get used to that.
:-) It seems to be the lot of the guy holding this kind of proposal.
It's a dirty job but
Oh well, I tried.
Cheers,
Colin Hales
.
Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
Colin Hales
christmas to you all and may 2003 bring you all closer to the elusive
'everything'.
:-)
Colin Hales
Russell Standish wrote:
Colin Hales wrote:
Hi Folks,
I have chewed this thread with great interest.
Our main gripe is the issue of emergent behaviour and the mathematical
treatment thereof? Yes? This is the area in which Wolfram claims to have
made progress. (I am still wading my way
the boundaries of emergence.
Will the historians look back on our obsession with closed form math and see
it as the machinations of mathematical youth? Para *** above is the clincher
and I have been unable to distil a definitive stance from all the writings.
Clues anyone?
regards,
Colin Hales
101 - 137 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
