Re: Mind Uploading

> On 7 May 2018, at 22:42, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > ​> ​You invoke your God “Matter” > > ​Gee, I don't think I've ever hear that insult from you before.​ You did.

Re: Mind Uploading

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > You invoke your God “Matter” > ​Gee, I don't think I've ever hear that insult from you before.​ > ​> ​ > to avoid testing the consequence of an hypothesis. > The consequence of the physics is more fundamental

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 7 May 2018, at 00:28, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > ​> ​Peano Arithmetic (PA) can already prove the existence of all computation. > > I don't need Peano or Plato to

Re: Mind Uploading

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 2:14 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thu, 3 May 2018 at 10:42 pm, John Clark wrote: > > ​>> ​ >> All correct arithmetical mathematical calculations may exist in some >> mystical Platonic universe and all possible books may too,

Re: Mind Uploading

On Thu, 3 May 2018 at 10:42 pm, John Clark wrote: All correct arithmetical mathematical calculations may exist in some > mystical Platonic universe and all possible books may too, but you need > matter to sort out the correct calculations from the incorrect ones and the >

Re: Mind Uploading

On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> ​ > Peano Arithmetic (PA) can already prove the existence of all computation. > I don't need Peano or Plato to know that computations exist because I can produce one right now, 2+2=4; but then unlike stuff in Plato's

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 3 May 2018, at 14:42, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > ​>>​I don't have a main dogma but if I did it would be information not matter. > > ​> ​That contradicts you

Re: Mind Uploading

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>>​ >> I don't have a main dogma but if I did it would be information not matter. > > > ​> ​ > *That contradicts you argument where you were to matter needed for a > computation to just exist.* > I don't think so. A random

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 30 Apr 2018, at 19:52, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/30/2018 1:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 27 Apr 2018, at 20:27, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/27/2018 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Also false: I use faith to

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 30 Apr 2018, at 16:26, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:12 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > >> ​>​>>​ ​like most pseudo-religious believers. >> >> ​​>>​Aren't you creative enough to think of at least one new

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/30/2018 1:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Apr 2018, at 20:27, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/27/2018 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Also false: I use faith to distinguish the truth we suspect and hope for, and the truth we verify or prove in some theory. Of course,

Re: Mind Uploading

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: *​>​>>​ ​like most pseudo-religious believers.* >>> >> >> ​ >> ​>>​ >> Aren't you creative enough to think of at least one new insult? ​ >> >> > > *​>​You illustrate that the God/Non-God debate is a trick in between >

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 27 Apr 2018, at 20:27, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/27/2018 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Also false: I use faith to distinguish the truth we suspect and hope for, >> and the truth we verify or prove in some theory. Of course, in “serious >> metaphysics”,

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 27 Apr 2018, at 20:02, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 6:20 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > ​> ​You need already faith to believe the sun will rise tomorrow, > No, the sun has risen the next day many

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/27/2018 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Also false: I use faith to distinguish the truth we suspect and hope for, and the truth we verify or prove in some theory.  Of course, in “serious metaphysics”, the term are made more precise. You need already faith to believe the sun will rise

Re: Mind Uploading

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 6:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ​> ​ > You need already faith to believe the sun will rise tomorrow, > No, the sun has risen the next day many billions of times so you can use indiction to conclude it will probably rise tomorrow too, I say probably

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 21:13, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/25/2018 3:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> G proves that (p <-> ~ []p) is equivalent with (p <-> <>t), or equivalently >> (p <-> ~[]f). So consistency (<>t) is a solution to the (logical) equation x >> <->

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 20:41, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/25/2018 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> The answer is that if a belief comes from reason, it might still be false. >> The belief that fact is earth was due to reason based on local >> extrapolation. Reason

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 20:40, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/25/2018 2:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:29, Brent Meeker >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 20:38, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/25/2018 2:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:24, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But religion, when understood,

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 20:35, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/25/2018 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:14, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The problem is that when people

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 25 Apr 2018, at 16:25, John Clark wrote: > > Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > The answer is that if a belief comes from reason, it might still be false. > > The belief that fact is earth was due to reason based on local > >

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/25/2018 3:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: G proves that (p <-> ~ []p) is equivalent with (p <-> <>t), or equivalently (p <-> ~[]f). So consistency (<>t) is a solution to the (logical) equation x <-> ~[]x. ?? What does this proof look like?  Why doesn't it prove f <->~[]f ? Brent -- You

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/25/2018 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The answer is that if a belief comes from reason, it might still be false. The belief that fact is earth was due to reason based on local extrapolation. Reason build theories, but later, reason + new evidence can show old theories to be wrong. So,

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/25/2018 2:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:29, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Science is never a question of agreement or disagreement, but of understanding or finding a mistake,

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/25/2018 2:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:24, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But religion, when understood, make you love all humans and non humans. That's all the true Scotsman fallacy. Not at all. There is a

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/25/2018 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:14, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The problem is that when people oppose science and religion, they tend to forget that “Primary matter” is also a “religion”, and

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 23 Apr 2018, at 12:58, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > [Sorry for the formatting. I don't know what to do, gmail is becoming > unusable] > > On 22 April 2018 at 15:55, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Hi Telmo, >> >> >> On 21 Apr 2018, at 10:59, Telmo

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 23 Apr 2018, at 00:39, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >> “Faith is believing what you know ain't so.” > > > That is blind faith, which is the opposite of faith by

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:29, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Science is never a question of agreement or disagreement, but of >> understanding or finding a mistake, internal or external (vis-àb-vis facts). > > That's simplisitc.

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:24, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> But religion, when understood, make you love all humans and non humans. > > That's all the true Scotsman fallacy. Not at all. There is a reason why religion (well

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:23, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> That's confused. Values are not objective facts and nobody (including >>> militant atheists) thinks they are. Values, like loving your children, are >>> inherently

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 22 Apr 2018, at 23:14, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> The problem is that when people oppose science and religion, they tend to >> forget that “Primary matter” is also a “religion”, and eventually they take >> a religion

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 21 Apr 2018, at 17:59, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/21/2018 1:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> I like to define God, sometimes, by what you still believe in when you >>> understand that the physical reality is a persistent illusion. > > A sufficiently

Re: Mind Uploading

On 21 April 2018 at 22:38, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 4/21/2018 3:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On 19 April 2018 at 21:47, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 4/18/2018 11:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 19 April 2018 at 06:22, Brent

Re: Mind Uploading

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> *“Faith is believing what you know ain't so.”* > > > > That is blind faith, which is the opposite of faith by reason, ​If the belief comes through reason then what does faith have to do with it? John K Clark​ --

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Science is never a question of agreement or disagreement, but of understanding or finding a mistake, internal or external (vis-àb-vis facts). That's simplisitc.  You commonly refer to agreement of beliefs, as in "Do you believe 2+2=4?"  Science is

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But religion, when understood, make you love all humans and non humans. That's all the true Scotsman fallacy. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That's confused. Values are not objective facts and nobody (including militant atheists) thinks they are. Values, like loving your children, are inherently subjective. Subjective does not mean it has no intrinsic values, That's my point.  All

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/22/2018 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The problem is that when people oppose science and religion, they tend to forget that “Primary matter” is also a “religion”, and eventually they take a religion for granted without knowing. You keep saying that, but it's just smearing your

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 21 Apr 2018, at 22:38, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/21/2018 3:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> On 19 April 2018 at 21:47, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> On 4/18/2018 11:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 19 April 2018 at 06:22, Brent Meeker

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 21 Apr 2018, at 19:30, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 6:31 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: > > > Religions play a multitude of roles. For example to relieve suffering > With the exception of death

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/21/2018 3:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 19 April 2018 at 21:47, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/18/2018 11:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 19 April 2018 at 06:22, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/18/2018 8:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 18 April 2018

Re: Mind Uploading

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 6:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > *> Religions play a multitude of roles. For example to relieve suffering* With the exception of death itself religion has caused more misery in the world than anything in human history. > *> and provide meaning.*

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/21/2018 1:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I like to define God, sometimes, by what you still believe in when you understand that the physical reality is a persistent illusion. A sufficiently persistent and shared illusion is about as good a reality as you can ask for. Brent -- You

Re: Mind Uploading

On 19 April 2018 at 21:47, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 4/18/2018 11:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On 19 April 2018 at 06:22, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 4/18/2018 8:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 18 April 2018 at 23:57, Brent

Re: Mind Uploading

Hi Bruno, >> Ok, but it is good to keep in mind that pagan gods were very different >> cultural constructs than the christian god. > > Yes, but with neoplatonism, the “pagan god” is the ONE, and it will influence > a lot Judaism, Christianity and Islam, not always with the "Second God" >

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/18/2018 11:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 19 April 2018 at 06:22, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/18/2018 8:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 18 April 2018 at 23:57, Brent Meeker wrote: theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 19 Apr 2018, at 08:50, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > On 19 April 2018 at 06:22, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >> >> On 4/18/2018 8:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> >>> On 18 April 2018 at 23:57, Brent Meeker wrote:

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 18 Apr 2018, at 19:30, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > ​>> ​Ad hominem my ass! Bruno > > ​> ​Try to be polite please. > > Try not using ridiculously pompous phrases

Re: Mind Uploading

On 19 April 2018 at 06:22, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 4/18/2018 8:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On 18 April 2018 at 23:57, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks, >>> >>> >>> No it

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/18/2018 8:51 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 18 April 2018 at 23:57, Brent Meeker wrote: theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks, No it doesn't. First, "theory" has a different origin from "theos"=god. Second, for the Greeks "theology" meant

Re: Mind Uploading

On 18 April 2018 at 23:57, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > >> > theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks, > > > No it doesn't. First, "theory" has a different origin from "theos"=god. > Second, for the Greeks "theology" meant discourse concerning the gods.

Re: Mind Uploading

​> ​ theology. It just means “theory of everything’” for the greeks, No it doesn't.  First, "theory" has a different origin from "theos"=god.  Second, for the Greeks "theology" meant discourse concerning the gods.  From Wikipedia: / //Greek theologia (θεολογία) was used with the meaning

Re: Mind Uploading

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> Ad hominem my ass! Bruno > > > ​> ​ > Try to be polite please. > Try not using ridiculously pompous phrases like "Ad hominem" and even more important try sending only ASCII sequential characters to this list that

Re: Mind Uploading

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> Ad hominem my ass! Bruno > > > ​> ​ > Try to be polite please. > Try not using ridiculously pompous phrases like "Ad hominem" and even more important try sending only ASCII sequential characters to this list that

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 17 Apr 2018, at 18:36, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > ​>> ​I know you love to invent new meanings for common words that nobody but > you has ever heard of,

Re: Mind Uploading

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 3:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> I know you love to invent new meanings for common words that nobody but >> you has ever heard of, however it makes no difference what meaning you have >> decreed the word "theology" should have today, if both

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 15 Apr 2018, at 21:22, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/15/2018 3:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 13 Apr 2018, at 21:08, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/13/2018 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Your theory doesn't explain it

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 15 Apr 2018, at 16:11, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > ​​>>​why do you keep asking the same very stupid question "After *YOU* have > been duplicated in a *YOU*

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/15/2018 3:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Apr 2018, at 21:08, Brent Meeker wrote: On 4/13/2018 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Your theory doesn't explain it without "adding more magic" either. You start by assuming that certain computations must instantiate

Re: Mind Uploading

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​ >> ​>>​ >> why do you keep asking the same very stupid question "After **YOU** have >> been duplicated in a **YOU** duplicating machine what one and only one >> thing will **YOU** see?” > > > ​>* ​* > *I asked something

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 13 Apr 2018, at 21:08, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/13/2018 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> Your theory doesn't explain it without "adding more magic" either. You >>> start by assuming that certain computations must instantiate consciousness. >> >> You

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 13 Apr 2018, at 19:14, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > ​> ​You are confusing​ [...]​ > > ​Horseshit ​ ​fron bullshit? ​ > > ​> ​The follower of Aristotle thought

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/13/2018 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Your theory doesn't explain it without "adding more magic" either.  You start by assuming that certain computations must instantiate consciousness. You confuse UDA and AUDA. The UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument) assumes mechanism, which is the

Re: Mind Uploading

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​> ​ > *You are confusing* > *​* [...]​ > ​Horseshit ​ ​fron bullshit? ​ ​> ​ > *The follower of Aristotle thought* > ​[,,,]​ > I don't give a damn what the followers of Aristotle The Ignorant thought. ​> *​* >

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 11 Apr 2018, at 21:02, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 4/10/2018 11:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 11 Apr 2018, at 01:29, John Clark >> > wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Bruno Marchal

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 11 Apr 2018, at 18:30, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >> If a theory can only explain how 6% of the matter/energy in the universe > >> works then it can't be

Re: Mind Uploading

On 4/10/2018 11:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Apr 2018, at 01:29, John Clark > wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Bruno Marchal >wrote: ​>> ​ We know for a fact that

Re: Mind Uploading

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> If a theory can only explain how 6% of the matter/energy in the > universe works then it can't be fundamental. > *?I don’t see why. That simply does not follow. A theory can be simply > incomplete, not advance

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 11 Apr 2018, at 01:29, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > ​>> ​We know for a fact that physics is not yet a fundamental theory because > it can’t explain what Dark Energy

Re: Mind Uploading

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> We know for a fact that physics is not yet a fundamental theory because >> it can’t explain what Dark Energy or Dark Matter is > > > ​> ​ > *That has nothing to do with physics being a fundamental theory or not.*

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

> On 8 Apr 2018, at 16:08, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 1:31:34 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 29 Mar 2018, at 19:05, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: *> There is evidence for physical atoms, but there is no evidence that > physics describe the fundamental theory. * We know for a fact that physics is not yet a fundamental theory because it can’t explain what Dark Energy

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 1:31:34 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 29 Mar 2018, at 19:05, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM, wrote: >> >> ​ ​>> ​

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 29 Mar 2018, at 17:55, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 11:28:56 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:49, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 11:34:41 AM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com >>

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

> On 28 Mar 2018, at 17:37, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:40 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > ​>> ​So mind is what the brain does. > > ​> ​Mind is what universal machine or number does. The physical brain

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

> On 29 Mar 2018, at 19:05, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM, wrote: > > ​​>> ​And a brain in a glass box​ ​would't be isolated either, it would be > connected

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 1:33:35 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:05 PM, > wrote: > > > >> *> What would the founders of information theory think about your >> presumed proposal? AG* > > > ​I would bet money they'd like it better than

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 1:33:35 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:05 PM, > wrote: > > > >> *> What would the founders of information theory think about your >> presumed proposal? AG* > > > ​I would bet money they'd like it better than

Re: Mind Uploading

On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:49, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 11:34:41 AM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 5:25:59 PM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 4:20:02 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 1:05:45 PM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM, wrote: >> >> ​ ​>> ​ And a brain in a glass box​ ​would't

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:05 PM, wrote: > *> What would the founders of information theory think about your presumed > proposal? AG* ​I would bet money they'd like it better than your theory about flying saucer ​ men​ in Roswell New Mexico who are such incompetent

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM, > wrote: > > ​ >>> ​>> ​ >>> And a brain in a glass box​ >>> >>> ​would't be isolated either, it would be connected to the internet and >>> ​a virtual body or a

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 12:10:21 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:14 PM, > wrote: > > ​> ​ >> Human neurons evolved to accept input from a nervous system embedded in a >> human body. >> > > ​Yes. > ​ > > >> ​> ​ >> Do you really think

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM, wrote: ​ >> ​>> ​ >> And a brain in a glass box​ >> >> ​would't be isolated either, it would be connected to the internet and ​a >> virtual body or a robot body or anything else it wanted to be connected to. >> And the connections would be

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:14 PM, wrote: ​> ​ > Human neurons evolved to accept input from a nervous system embedded in a > human body. > ​Yes. ​ > ​> ​ > Do you really think you can attach them to anything else, such as the > Internet, and everything is good to go? AG

Re: Mind Uploading

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 11:28:56 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:49, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 11:34:41 AM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 5:25:59 PM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com

Re: Mind Uploading

> On 27 Mar 2018, at 19:49, agrayson2...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 11:34:41 AM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 5:25:59 PM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote: > > >

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 6:58:58 PM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 6:15:16 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:50 PM, wrote: >> >> ​>> ​ ​Why is a brain in a box made of bone fundamentally

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 6:15:16 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:50 PM, > wrote: > > ​>> ​ >>> ​Why is a brain in a box made of bone fundamentally different from a >>> brain in a box made of glass? >>> >> >> ​>* ​* >> *The difference is

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:50 PM, wrote: ​>> ​ >> ​Why is a brain in a box made of bone fundamentally different from a >> brain in a box made of glass? >> > > ​>* ​* > *The difference is obvious; a brain encased in bone isn't isolated.* > ​And a brain in a glass box​

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 2:50:57 PM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 11:42:39 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:36 AM, wrote: >> >> *​> ​The fatal flaw in Clark's model is that it's not all about the

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:36 AM, wrote: *​> ​The fatal flaw in Clark's model is that it's not all about the brain. > It's also about the body, which keeps sending signals to the brain. A > disembodied brain cannot model a human being. AG * > ​Why is a brain in a box

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ​>> ​ >> So mind is what the brain does. > > *​> ​Mind is what universal machine or number does. The physical brain is > among that.* > ​Numbers can't count, but I can count numbers. Rocks can't count but I can count

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 4:13:43 PM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 3:48:44 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 3/27/2018 8:34 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> *But what you can never do IMO, is determine whether either Rover, in any >>

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

> On 27 Mar 2018, at 02:52, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 10:01:36 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 26 Mar 2018, at 00:07, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote: >> >> I am more interested in the graph

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

> On 26 Mar 2018, at 19:17, John Clark wrote: > > Brent Meeker Wrote" > > > It seems to me there's something fishy about making behavior and conscious > > thought functionally equivalent so neither can change without a > > corresponding change in the other. My

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

Based on everything I have read of John K Clark's contributions to this list, I do solemnly hope he will be one of the first brains to be revived -- hope they give you the body of a mid- to late-eighties Van Damme, my friend! On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 1:16:03 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: >

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 3:48:44 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > > > On 3/27/2018 8:34 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > *But what you can never do IMO, is determine whether either Rover, in any > circumstance, has self knowledge or self perception, or can experience > rudimentary or complex

  1   2   >