Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 7/17/2011 2:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 3:37 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 7/17/2011 1:18 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:54 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 7/17/2011 11:50 AM, Jason Res

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 5:17 PM, benjayk wrote: > > > > benjayk wrote: > > > > > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > But with comp, you are using "1+1=2", and much more, to tackle the > >>> > subjective truth of a universal

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

benjayk wrote: > > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> > But with comp, you are using "1+1=2", and much more, to tackle the >>> > subjective truth of a universal number thinking about "1+1=2". So, if >>> > you reject arithmetical tru

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk > wrote: > >> >> >> > But with comp, you are using "1+1=2", and much more, to tackle the >> > subjective truth of a universal number thinking about "1+1=2". So, if >> > you reject arithmetical truth, comp makes no much sense. >>

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 3:37 PM, meekerdb wrote: > ** > On 7/17/2011 1:18 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:54 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 7/17/2011 11:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> For Euler's identity to hold, Pi must exist in its infinitely precise >>> form, but Pi d

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 7/17/2011 1:18 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:54 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 7/17/2011 11:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote: For Euler's identity to hold, Pi must exist in its infinitely precise form, but Pi does not exist in its infi

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:54 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 7/17/2011 11:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > >> For Euler's identity to hold, Pi must exist in its infinitely precise >> form, but Pi does not exist in its infinitely precise form anywhere in this >> universe. >> > > You don't know that, since spa

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 7/17/2011 11:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote: For Euler's identity to hold, Pi must exist in its infinitely precise form, but Pi does not exist in its infinitely precise form anywhere in this universe. You don't know that, since space may well be a continuum (c.f. the recent paper by Feeney et al

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:34 PM, meekerdb wrote: > ** > On 7/17/2011 10:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk > wrote: > >> >> >> > But with comp, you are using "1+1=2", and much more, to tackle the >> > subjective truth of a universal number thinking about

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 7/17/2011 10:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk > wrote: > But with comp, you are using "1+1=2", and much more, to tackle the > subjective truth of a universal number thinking about "1+1=2". So, if >

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, benjayk wrote: > > > > But with comp, you are using "1+1=2", and much more, to tackle the > > subjective truth of a universal number thinking about "1+1=2". So, if > > you reject arithmetical truth, comp makes no much sense. > I didn't write I reject arithmetical t

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 15 Jul 2011, at 19:54, Terren Suydam wrote: Hi Bruno, Roughly speaking, my main struggle with your wonderful arguments is making the leap from the domain of mathematical logic to the one and only domain we can be sure of as conscious, namely biological human consciousness, and this without

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Hi Bruno, Roughly speaking, my main struggle with your wonderful arguments is making the leap from the domain of mathematical logic to the one and only domain we can be sure of as conscious, namely biological human consciousness, and this without rejecting comp. Unfortunately I am hindered by my l

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Hi Terren Apology for commenting your post with some delay. On 06 Jul 2011, at 19:54, Terren Suydam wrote: Hey Bruno, Thanks for your comments... I'm a little clearer now on your stance on consciousness and intelligence, I think. I have a few more questions and concerns. Regarding conscious

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 12 Jul 2011, at 08:34, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:26:19PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: David Deutsch has an interesting discussion about this in his "Beginning of Infinity". He actually introduces several notions of universality, one of which is universality of the n

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Hi Terren Apology for commenting your post with some delay. (Actually I send this yesterday, but I don't see it appears, so I resend it). On 06 Jul 2011, at 19:54, Terren Suydam wrote: Hey Bruno, Thanks for your comments... I'm a little clearer now on your stance on consciousness and inte

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 02:26:19PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > >David Deutsch has an interesting discussion about this in his > >"Beginning of Infinity". He actually introduces several notions of > >universality, one of which is universality of the numbering > >system. Our numbering system is

RE: COMP refutation paper - finally out

-Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com on behalf of Colin Geoffrey Hales Sent: Sun 7/10/2011 4:44 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: COMP refutation paper - finally out -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com on behalf

RE: COMP refutation paper - finally out

-Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com on behalf of Bruno Marchal Sent: Sat 7/9/2011 10:14 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out On 09 Jul 2011, at 07:07, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: > Down the bottom if

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 09 Jul 2011, at 14:26, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Jul 2011, at 09:10, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 11:04:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jul 2011, at 03:39, B Soroud wrote: I mean if you went back to classical greece... or classical india could it have be

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

if you really believe in reality you should commit suicide... if a reality remains there is reality if no reality remains... well then all is base stupidity. On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 09 Jul 2011, at 06:06, meekerdb wrote: > > On 7/8/2011 8:57 PM,

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 09 Jul 2011, at 06:02, meekerdb wrote: On 7/8/2011 8:08 PM, Rex Allen wrote: On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/8/2011 7:35 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: it makes so much sense. the doctrine of physicalism is in the least on the same plane as any idealis

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 7/9/2011 12:00 AM, Rex Allen wrote: On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:47 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 7/8/2011 11:35 PM, Rex Allen wrote: In other words: What do we make of the fact that these predictions were successful (or not)? What does this mean with respect to our beliefs ab

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 09 Jul 2011, at 19:06, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: Bruno, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by vitalism but if its what I have in mind. then it "died" erroneously. I don't think notions of qi and prana are without foundation far from it. There is a sense in which, if vit

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Bruno, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by vitalism but if its what I have in mind. then it "died" erroneously. I don't think notions of qi and prana are without foundation far from it. There is a sense in which, if vitalism died, that was a mistake but I am not exactly sure o

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 09 Jul 2011, at 09:10, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 11:04:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Jul 2011, at 03:39, B Soroud wrote: I mean if you went back to classical greece... or classical india could it have been predicted or shown to deduced? Excellent ques

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

refutation paper - finally out On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: > Hi, > > > > You have missed the point. When you feel pain in your hand your are feeling > it because the physics of specific specialized small regions of the cranial > centr

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 09 Jul 2011, at 06:06, meekerdb wrote: On 7/8/2011 8:57 PM, B Soroud wrote: I'm saying that perhaps the philosophic foundations and presupps of physics are erroneous and something alternative is needed... I am saying we need to ground physics in an idealist metaphysics That's where my

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 08 Jul 2011, at 23:33, meekerdb wrote: On 7/8/2011 2:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The usual analogy is that your mind is your software, and your brain is the main operating system. It is obviously Turing universal (once you know the definition and think a little bit), and the comp ass

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 11:04:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 08 Jul 2011, at 03:39, B Soroud wrote: > > >I mean if you went back to classical greece... or classical > >india could it have been predicted or shown to deduced? > > Excellent question. China was close. Reading the treati

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:47 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 7/8/2011 11:35 PM, Rex Allen wrote: >>> >>> In other words:  What do we make of the fact that these predictions were >>> >  successful (or not)?  What does this mean with respect to our beliefs >>> > about >>> >  what kinds of things exist? >>>

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

ent: Sat 7/9/2011 1:23 AM > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Colin Geoffrey Hales < > cgha...@unimelb.edu.au > > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > > &g

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 7/8/2011 11:35 PM, Rex Allen wrote: In other words: What do we make of the fact that these predictions were > successful (or not)? What does this mean with respect to our beliefs about > what kinds of things exist? > > The things we take to exist are the elements of our successful models.

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

"...the only that could possibly matter in this case would be one derived from experience and is intrinsically "realizable" through a certain methodology." You didn't say anything about idealistic. "Derived from experience" and "intrinsically realizable" sounds like the scientific method to

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 12:02 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 7/8/2011 8:08 PM, Rex Allen wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 7/8/2011 7:35 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: >>> >>> it makes so much sense. >>> >>> the doctrine of physicalism is in the least on the s

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Science deriving a idealistic metaphysic from experience? On Friday, July 8, 2011, meekerdb wrote: > On 7/8/2011 10:55 PM, B Soroud wrote: > > That's what a lot of philosophers have said.  I say, "Have at it!"  Let me > know what you come up with. > > In theory one could formulate a rationalist

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 7/8/2011 10:55 PM, B Soroud wrote: That's what a lot of philosophers have said. I say, "Have at it!" Let me know what you come up with. In theory one could formulate a rationalist system but that would of course be ultimately unsatisfactory... The theoretical level is just a means t

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

That's what a lot of philosophers have said. I say, "Have at it!" Let me know what you come up with. In theory one could formulate a rationalist system but that would of course be ultimately unsatisfactory... The theoretical level is just a means to an end and never an end in itself, and if

RE: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Down the bottom if you dare there be dragons... :-) -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com on behalf of Jason Resch Sent: Sat 7/9/2011 1:23 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:56

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 7/8/2011 8:57 PM, B Soroud wrote: I'm saying that perhaps the philosophic foundations and presupps of physics are erroneous and something alternative is needed... I am saying we need to ground physics in an idealist metaphysics That's where my thoughts currently at. That's what a lo

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 7/8/2011 8:08 PM, Rex Allen wrote: On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:01 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 7/8/2011 7:35 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: it makes so much sense. the doctrine of physicalism is in the least on the same plane as

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

I'm saying that perhaps the philosophic foundations and presupps of physics are erroneous and something alternative is needed... I am saying we need to ground physics in an idealist metaphysics That's where my thoughts currently at. On Friday, July 8, 2011, B Soroud wrote: > I'm not saying f

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

I'm not saying forget psychics... I'm just saying perhaps we need something more and additional approaches... On Friday, July 8, 2011, Rex Allen wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > On 7/8/2011 7:35 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: > > it makes so much sense.

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 7/8/2011 7:35 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: > >> it makes so much sense. >> >> the doctrine of physicalism is in the least on the same plane as any >> idealistic metaphysics, especially some form of objective idealism. >> But in my e

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 7/8/2011 7:35 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: it makes so much sense. the doctrine of physicalism is in the least on the same plane as any idealistic metaphysics, especially some form of objective idealism. But in my eye… the fairer judgment is that some form of idealistic metaphysics

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

it makes so much sense. the doctrine of physicalism is in the least on the same plane as any idealistic metaphysics, especially some form of objective idealism. But in my eye… the fairer judgment is that some form of idealistic metaphysics is in fact situated a step above physicalism in proba

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Bruno = the will to freedom... . all his thought can be reduced to -> the will to freedom. -- 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,

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Bruno, you are charismatic, but I refuse to be mesmerized by your fantastical charms. good luck! > > -- 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

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 7/8/2011 2:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The usual analogy is that your mind is your software, and your brain is the main operating system. It is obviously Turing universal (once you know the definition and think a little bit), and the comp assumption is that it is not more than Turing unive

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 08 Jul 2011, at 03:39, B Soroud wrote: Bruno, you are an animal... True. According to Aristotle, I am a rational animal. What Aristotle did not see is that the more an animal is rational, the more it can become irrational and even self-destructing. "So that you can in principle s

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

yeah, who knows what the fundamental nature of all things is. it could shock and surprise the hell out of us but for some reason I feel optimistic now that it isn't totally out of reach. On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Constanti

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

> > First let me ask you, how do you define matter? > matter seems to generally mean the analytical divisibility/conundrum of what is ordinarily observed in an "external"/"gross" and interconnected sense. It seems to generally be the analysis of a) nature... as in its basic meaning of "to be born"

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: > > > Ultimately physics is just set of well defined rules (algorithms) and > > matter and energy is just information. > > How do you exactly distinguish "matter" and "energy"... what do you on > one hand consider to be "matter" an

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Indeed... we may have made a mistake in our historical movement towards a total rejection of metaphysical speculation in favor of the at hand... we may have acted prematurely and out of too much impatience and yearning for absolutes. I think metaphysical speculation is coming back into the picture

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

In defense of Bruno: it makes perfect sense to state that physics is not "the first principles of all being." It makes perfect sense to not assume that some materialistic reductionism will not provide one with the first principles in other words, physics is not the fundamental science that gro

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

> Ultimately physics is just  set of well defined rules (algorithms) and > matter and energy is just information. How do you exactly distinguish "matter" and "energy"... what do you on one hand consider to be "matter" and on the other consider to be "energy. and how are both just information?

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

We always look away and out as it were... our assertions are a "outlook', we are always looking away from ourselves out or towards something else up and away or beneath and below the question is: has an outlook? what has a figure or story of "the way things are"? How is the perceiving instrume

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: > Hi, > > > > You have missed the point. When you feel pain in your hand your are feeling > it because the physics of specific specialized small regions of the cranial > central nervous system are doing things. This includes (1

RE: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Hi, You have missed the point. When you feel pain in your hand your are feeling it because the physics of specific specialized small regions of the cranial central nervous system are doing things. This includes (1) action potentials mutually resonating with (2) a gigantic EM field system in ext

RE: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Hi, You have missed the point. When you feel pain in your hand your are feeling it because the physics of specific specialized small regions of the cranial central nervous system are doing things. Yes, they are passing signals back and forth, performing additions, multiplications, and comp

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Bruno, you are an animal... "So that you can in principle survive with another body, coming from the first by local functional substitution. I coin this into saying "yes doctor" to a surgeon proposing you an artifical digital brain." What is local functional substitution? If I am not my brain, t

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

A great book (fiction) for wrapping your head around the weirder consequences of comp is Greg Egan's Permutation City. Terren On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> okay, let me see if I can try, If I have an affinity for it, If i find it >> not boring, dry, trivial, far-fetche

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 07 Jul 2011, at 03:12, B Soroud wrote: " If reality = a physical universe" Personally, I don't believe that. Here is the catch, I don't believe its antithesis or any alternative. Well the idea is to search for a theory. "My point is that if we assume mechanism" Unfortunately, sinc

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

ersal machinery. Bruno R Miller -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Constantine Pseudonymous Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 2:48 PM To: Everything List Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out Bruno, is i

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 7/7/2011 12:11 AM, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: Hi, You have missed the point. When you feel pain in your hand your are feeling it because the physics of specific specialized small regions of the cranial central nervous system are doing things. This includes (1) action potentials mutually

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

ps.com > > *Subject:* Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales < > cgha...@unimelb.edu.au> wrote: > > Hi Richard et. al., > Wow that thread just keeps on going! > > I a

RE: COMP refutation paper - finally out

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jason Resch Sent: Thursday, 7 July 2011 4:16 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 7/6/2011 11:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Any regular user of the Internet knows how difficult it is to read CAPTCHA's, I struggle to correctly enter them all the time, take a look at Google's: https://www.google.com/accounts/DisplayUnlockCaptcha They are so difficult today because AI capable of

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales < cgha...@unimelb.edu.au> wrote: > Hi Richard et. al., > Wow that thread just keeps on going! > > I am designing chips that do what the brain does. There is ZERO > computing. The use of the chips is, I believe a viable source of > empirical ver

RE: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Hi Richard et. al., Wow that thread just keeps on going! I am designing chips that do what the brain does. There is ZERO computing. The use of the chips is, I believe a viable source of empirical verification of the claims of the kind that have been discussed in this thread, insofar as any practic

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

" If reality = a physical universe" Personally, I don't believe that. Here is the catch, I don't believe its antithesis or any alternative. "My point is that if we assume mechanism" Unfortunately, since I am new to this... I don't know what you mean by mechanism. "physical reality emerges from

RE: COMP refutation paper - finally out

: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out Bruno, is it possible that there is no "fundamental reality" or "primary reality"... and even if there was, and it was non- observational or non-experiential why would it matter to us? It seems to me that reality or knowledge alway

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Hi Soroud, I hope you don't mind I answer in one post. On 05 Jul 2011, at 21:18, B Soroud wrote: Bruno, I am not sympathizing with the Neo-Platonist dogmatists. I am not sympathizing with any dogmatists. lol, you still believe in the dream of God = truth/reality. I have to say that I ap

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

dis-satisfactory not satisfactory. On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:56 PM, B Soroud wrote: > the point is... even if science did support some rudimentary conception of > a gnostic cosmology. > > whereof teleology... > > it is my claim that if you study Buddhism or Vedanta or Neo-Platonism or > Kaba

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

the point is... even if science did support some rudimentary conception of a gnostic cosmology. whereof teleology... it is my claim that if you study Buddhism or Vedanta or Neo-Platonism or Kaballah or whatever they are all ultimately satisfactory and incoherent. So there is no superstru

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Bruno, is it possible that there is no "fundamental reality" or "primary reality"... and even if there was, and it was non- observational or non-experiential why would it matter to us? It seems to me that reality or knowledge always implies a blind dualism that reflects the way in which "we" (

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Hey Bruno, Thanks for your comments... I'm a little clearer now on your stance on consciousness and intelligence, I think. I have a few more questions and concerns. Regarding consciousness, my biggest concern is that you're not really explaining consciousness, so much as describing it. To be sure

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Bruno, I am not sympathizing with the Neo-Platonist dogmatists. I am the ultimate anti-Platonist. And Christians, in the Eastern Orthodox sense... are the ultimate modern Neo-Platonists (all other Christians are degenerate except some Catholics) if you want the living tradition of Neo-Platonis

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 05 Jul 2011, at 00:42, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote: lol, the "pagan confusion" in this forum is exactly why the Church thought it necessary to dogmatically formulate a creed and impose that rigid and absolute structure on the masses. otherwise such heathen indeterminacy and inventive

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Benjay: yes, in introducing states of meditation and lucid dreaming and drug altered states you may perhaps hone in on the essence and nuance of what qualifies consciousness and illuminate something of the qualitative texture and subtly and scope of its complexity of modes or states. There is

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

John M, that was a pretty excellent performance, you should write more on here. On Jun 15, 12:54 pm, John Mikes wrote: > Dear Brent, > let me cut in with your last par: > > *"...There is a tendency to talk about "human-equivalent intelligence" or > "human level intelligence" as an ultimate goal.

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

lol, the "pagan confusion" in this forum is exactly why the Church thought it necessary to dogmatically formulate a creed and impose that rigid and absolute structure on the masses. otherwise such heathen indeterminacy and inventiveness would continue ad infinitum. Neo-platonism was construct

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Terren, Sorry for sending my answer with some delay. I thought I send it, but the post was sleeping in my draft box. I appreciate you insist for the comment. Best, Here it is: On 24 Jun 2011, at 06:37, Terren Suydam wrote: Hi Bruno, thanks for your comments... see below. On Tue, Jun 2

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Bruno - once again I find myself awaiting your response... let me know if you are uninterested in continuing this line of discussion. Otherwise, I look forward to what you have to say. Thanks, Terren terren wrote: > > Hi Bruno, thanks for your comments... see below. > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out Hi Stephen, On 28 Jun 2011, at 22:04, Stephen Paul King wrote: From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 3:47 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out Hi Stephen, On 28 Jun 2011, at 22:04, Stephen Paul King wrote: From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 3:47 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out On

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

Hi Stephen, On 28 Jun 2011, at 22:04, Stephen Paul King wrote: From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 3:47 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out On 28 Jun 2011, at 18:49, Stephen Paul King wrote: -Original Message- From

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 3:47 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out On 28 Jun 2011, at 18:49, Stephen Paul King wrote: -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 12:38 PM To

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 28 Jun 2011, at 18:49, Stephen Paul King wrote: -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 12:38 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out On 27 Jun 2011, at 21:51, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > On 26.06.2011

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

-Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 12:38 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out On 27 Jun 2011, at 21:51, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > On 26.06.2011 22:33 meekerdb said the following: >> On 6/2

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 27 Jun 2011, at 21:51, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 26.06.2011 22:33 meekerdb said the following: On 6/26/2011 12:58 PM, Rex Allen wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Bruno Marchal ... The idea that our theories are approaching some metaphysical truth is essentially just the same as a

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 6/27/2011 12:51 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 26.06.2011 22:33 meekerdb said the following: On 6/26/2011 12:58 PM, Rex Allen wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Bruno Marchal ... The idea that our theories are approaching some metaphysical truth is essentially just the same as assum

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 6/27/2011 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Jun 2011, at 01:09, meekerdb wrote: On 6/25/2011 1:07 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But a consequence is that a universal machine consciousness cannot sleep, making consciousness some sort of absolute invariant. I think Descartes got a similar idea

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 26.06.2011 22:33 meekerdb said the following: On 6/26/2011 12:58 PM, Rex Allen wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Bruno Marchal ... The idea that our theories are approaching some metaphysical truth is essentially just the same as assuming there is some more comprehensive and coher

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 26 Jun 2011, at 21:58, Rex Allen wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Jun 2011, at 17:49, Rex Allen wrote: Awareness and self-awareness aren't related to the question of consciousness. They fall well within the realm of the easy problems. I have deduce

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 26 Jun 2011, at 01:09, meekerdb wrote: On 6/25/2011 1:07 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But a consequence is that a universal machine consciousness cannot sleep, making consciousness some sort of absolute invariant. I think Descartes got a similar idea, with other people. Now, we have to exp

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On 6/26/2011 8:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote: On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 8:49 PM, meekerdb > wrote: > On 6/26/2011 2:37 PM, Rex Allen wrote: >>> >>> We can never be sure it's real (and in >>> > general it may incoherent patches), but on the other hand we can't be >>> > sur

RE: COMP refutation paper - finally out

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rex Allen Sent: Monday, 27 June 2011 1:58 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales < cgha...@unimelb.edu.au> wrote: > > There are empirical predictions made by T' that cannot be made by T and > these are entirely confined to the implementation of an observer. > > What's an example of this? Rex -- You received this message

Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 8:49 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 6/26/2011 2:37 PM, Rex Allen wrote: >>> >>> We can never be sure it's real (and in >>> > general it may incoherent patches), but on the other hand we can't be >>> > sure >>> > any particular part of it is not real. >>> >> >> Right, but assert

<    1   2   3   >