On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 04:33:15AM +, chris peck wrote:
Hi Russel
Thank goodness Clarcky has the same/similar complaint as me. I think Brent
does too, because he said he had an initial reaction to the step like this
and then offered an analysis of the probabilities to me all of which
On 9/25/2013 8:22 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 02:34:10AM +, chris peck wrote:
I'll have a pop at this because I have a problem too.
I get stuck on Bruno's 'proof' at the point where the comp practitioner, about
to be duplicated and sent to Washington and Moscow, is
On 25 Sep 2013, at 18:38, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
I know not of these hundreds of posts that you speak.
You don't?? If you haven't read any of the hundreds of posts I have
written about Bruno's proof (far more
On 25 Sep 2013, at 19:06, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The first person indeterminacy is a ten lines reasoning, usually
considered as rather obvious.
And it's the obvious stuff that has destroyed many a mathematical
proof or
On 25 Sep 2013, at 20:51, David Nyman wrote:
On 25 September 2013 15:01, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I agree. It is in that sense that we can say that modern biophysics
makes
vitalism irrelevant.
(I am actually arguing that computationalism makes materialism
irrelevant
in
Anyone who has a problem with Bruno's teleportation thought experiment
should logically have the same problem with the MWI. If for the sake of
argument I use a quantum event to decide whether to get on a plane to Moscow
or Washington, then my diary will contain one or the other destination - in
+1000
From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 08:46:25AM +1000, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:38:47PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Russell
:55 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 9/25/2013 8:37 PM, LizR wrote:
Anyone who has a problem with Bruno's teleportation thought
experiment should logically
have the same problem with the MWI
On 25 Sep 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/25/2013 11:51 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 25 September 2013 15:01, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I agree. It is in that sense that we can say that modern
biophysics makes
vitalism irrelevant.
(I am actually arguing that
On 25 Sep 2013, at 22:31, John Mikes wrote:
Let us start at the end: David's conclusion upon Brent's ()remark:
...
The advantage of
looking at a circle of 'reductions'
NUMBERS - MACHINE DREAMS - PHYSICAL - HUMANS - PHYSICS -
NUMBERS.
is that it cautions
On 25 Sep 2013, at 23:57, LizR wrote:
On 26 September 2013 08:23, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
There seems to be a lot self-congratulatory bashing of reductive
materialism on this list without noticing that it has provided all
the knowledge of advanced science, while metaphysical
On 26 Sep 2013, at 05:22, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 02:34:10AM +, chris peck wrote:
I'll have a pop at this because I have a problem too.
I get stuck on Bruno's 'proof' at the point where the comp
practitioner, about to be duplicated and sent to Washington and
On 26 Sep 2013, at 07:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/25/2013 8:37 PM, LizR wrote:
Anyone who has a problem with Bruno's teleportation thought
experiment should logically have the same problem with the MWI. If
for the sake of argument I use a quantum event to decide whether to
get on a plane to
On 26 September 2013 08:14, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You argue, I think, that
computationalism escapes this by showing how computation and logic
emerge naturally from arithmetic.
And how this explains the appearance of discourse on consciousness and
matter
Yes, ISTM that this
The MWI first made me realise that my notion of I might be inadequate in
more ways than I'd previously imagined. For a while I went around thinking
there's a version of me - and it IS me - who's spontaneously combusting at
this moment. And I can't say thank God I'm not her, because I *am* - or the
. That kind of
intuition. The kind it has been fruitful not to ignore in our evolutionary
past. ;)
All the best
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:35:58 +1200
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
The MWI first made me realise that my
On 9/26/2013 4:51 PM, chris peck wrote:
Hi
Well Im sure that I am missing something important, but I can't see it so far...
/The diary is the one that you have with you. You will not have two
diaries, since you cannot experience being in Moscow and Wsahington at
the same time with
On 27 September 2013 12:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 4:51 PM, chris peck wrote:
*Giving the built-in symmetry of this experiment, if asked before the
experiment about his personal future location, the experiencer must confess
he cannot predict with certainty the
On 9/26/2013 5:40 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 September 2013 12:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 4:51 PM, chris peck wrote:
/Giving the built-in symmetry of this experiment, if asked before the
experiment
about his personal future
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:51:24PM +, chris peck wrote:
Perhaps you don't, but it isn't important. I think it is generally accepted,
perhaps not on this list, that one would be banging at the walls of the
teleporter, screaming to be released, certain of impending death. That kind
of
On 27 September 2013 12:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 5:40 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 September 2013 12:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 4:51 PM, chris peck wrote:
*Giving the built-in symmetry of this experiment, if asked before the
experiment
On 27 September 2013 13:05, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
This is a sort of cul de sac experience, which has to be impossible to
create if QTI is true. The existence of a universal dovetailer entails
the lack of all cul de sac experiences (Comp immortality).
Of course if I
On 9/26/2013 6:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
This is a sort of cul de sac experience, which has to be impossible to
create if QTI is true. The existence of a universal dovetailer entails
the lack of all cul de sac experiences (Comp immortality).
So does it make loss of consciousness
On 9/26/2013 6:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 September 2013 12:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 5:40 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 September 2013 12:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 4:51
On 27 September 2013 13:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 6:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
This is a sort of cul de sac experience, which has to be impossible to
create if QTI is true. The existence of a universal dovetailer entails
the lack of all cul de sac experiences
On 27 September 2013 11:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 6:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
This is a sort of cul de sac experience, which has to be impossible to
create if QTI is true. The existence of a universal dovetailer entails
the lack of all cul de sac experiences
On 9/26/2013 6:47 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 September 2013 13:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 6:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
This is a sort of cul de sac experience, which has to be impossible to
create if QTI is true. The existence
ought to be committed to the version where the probability is 1 because there
are two of me. In effect that has been the thrust of my complaint.
All the best
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 13:47:54 +1200
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list
On 27 September 2013 14:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 6:47 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 September 2013 13:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 6:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
This is a sort of cul de sac experience, which has to be impossible to
On 9/26/2013 7:15 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 27 September 2013 11:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 6:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
This is a sort of cul de sac experience, which has to be impossible to
create if QTI is true. The existence of a universal dovetailer
On 27 September 2013 12:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 7:15 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 27 September 2013 11:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 6:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
This is a sort of cul de sac experience, which has to be
On 9/26/2013 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 September 2013 14:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 6:47 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 September 2013 13:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 6:05
On 9/26/2013 7:48 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 27 September 2013 12:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 7:15 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 27 September 2013 11:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 6:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
This is a sort of
On 9/26/2013 8:02 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 27 September 2013 12:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 7:48 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 27 September 2013 12:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 7:15 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 27 September
On 27 September 2013 14:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But I think this is a confusion. Because computations have states and
nothing corresponding to transition times between states people are tempted
to identify those states with states of consciousness and make an analogy
with
On 27 September 2013 15:02, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
OK. So why is that impossible?
It's not impossible if you lose consciousness and there are no
conscious entities with your memories and mental states just before
you lost consciousness.
In a multiverse there are
On 9/26/2013 8:56 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 September 2013 14:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But I think this is a confusion. Because computations have states and
nothing
corresponding to transition times between states people are tempted to
On 27 September 2013 16:15, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 8:56 PM, LizR wrote:
On 27 September 2013 14:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But I think this is a confusion. Because computations have states and
nothing corresponding to transition times between
On 27 September 2013 13:30, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 8:02 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 27 September 2013 12:52, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/26/2013 7:48 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 27 September 2013 12:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 24 Sep 2013, at 19:57, John Clark wrote:
On 23 Sep 2013, at 03:16, Russell Standish wrote:
John, for the sake of the rest of us, it would be useful for you
to summarise just what the problems were that you found with the
first three steps.
In other words will I pretend that the
On 25 Sep 2013, at 05:44, LizR wrote:
On 25 September 2013 15:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2013 6:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 September 2013 13:38, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
This is also true of materialism. Whether you think this is a problem
or not
On 25 Sep 2013, at 06:39, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/24/2013 9:21 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 September 2013 16:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2013 8:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 September 2013 15:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2013 6:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 September
On 25 Sep 2013, at 07:43, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/24/2013 9:45 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 September 2013 16:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Right. Idle isn't exactly the right word. I think that like
life consciousness will be seen to be different things
andthere will be
On 25 September 2013 05:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
We will have learned what emotions and feelings
are at the level of sensors and computation and action. And when we have
done that 'the hard problem' will be seen to have been an idle question -
like What is life. proved to be
On 25 Sep 2013, at 13:40, David Nyman wrote:
On 25 September 2013 05:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
We will have learned what emotions and feelings
are at the level of sensors and computation and action. And when
we have
done that 'the hard problem' will be seen to have been an
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
I know not of these hundreds of posts that you speak.
You don't?? If you haven't read any of the hundreds of posts I have
written about Bruno's proof (far more than the silly thing deserves) then
there seems no
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The first person indeterminacy is a ten lines reasoning, usually
considered as rather obvious.
And it's the obvious stuff that has destroyed many a mathematical proof or
philosophical edifice. You make a big deal about duplicating
On 9/25/2013 4:40 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 25 September 2013 05:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
We will have learned what emotions and feelings
are at the level of sensors and computation and action. And when we have
done that 'the hard problem' will be seen to have been an idle
On 25 September 2013 15:01, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I agree. It is in that sense that we can say that modern biophysics makes
vitalism irrelevant.
(I am actually arguing that computationalism makes materialism irrelevant
in that same sense).
Yes, I see that.
Of course the
2013/9/20 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 20 Sep 2013, at 11:46, chris peck wrote:
Hi Bruno
Im not all that wrapped by Popper's method possibly because I have a
background in the soft sciences where I think it is much harder to devise
falsifiable statements. Other minds being
On 9/25/2013 10:06 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The first person indeterminacy is a ten lines reasoning, usually
considered as
rather obvious.
And it's the obvious stuff that has destroyed many a
On 25 September 2013 19:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'd say the standard riposte is that the first person facts (qualia?) are
just inherent in the 3p model. There is feeling that goes with certain
kinds of information processing (e.g. creating a personal narrative). This
is
On 9/25/2013 11:51 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 25 September 2013 15:01, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I agree. It is in that sense that we can say that modern biophysics makes
vitalism irrelevant.
(I am actually arguing that computationalism makes materialism irrelevant
in that same
Let us start at the end: David's conclusion upon Brent's ()remark:
...
* The advantage of
looking at a circle of 'reductions'
NUMBERS - MACHINE DREAMS - PHYSICAL - HUMANS - PHYSICS - NUMBERS.
is that it cautions one against this kind fundamentalism. Shall we take
On 9/25/2013 12:42 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 25 September 2013 19:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I'd say the standard riposte is that the first person facts (qualia?) are
just inherent in the 3p model. There is feeling that goes with certain
kinds of information processing (e.g.
On 25 September 2013 21:49, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You making up opinions for reductive materialists. I don't know any who
think money or love aren't real. And in fact it's not at all clear what
'materialism' means, except in contrast to 'idealism'. It is physicists like
On 25 September 2013 21:23, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
There seems to be a lot self-congratulatory bashing of reductive materialism
on this list without noticing that it has provided all the knowledge of
advanced science, while metaphysical Platonism has provided speculation.
On 26 September 2013 08:23, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
There seems to be a lot self-congratulatory bashing of reductive
materialism on this list without noticing that it has provided all the
knowledge of advanced science, while metaphysical Platonism has provided
speculation.
I
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:38:47PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
I know not of these hundreds of posts that you speak.
You don't?? If you haven't read any of the hundreds of posts I have
written about Bruno's
On 25 September 2013 21:31, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
I feel Bruno does not 'depart' from agnosticism: he remarked several time to
be 'even more' agnostic than myself (a confessed all-agnostic). He just
feels awe for his Platonistic base to adore numbers (especially the primes).
I
On 9/25/2013 2:57 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 September 2013 08:23, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
There seems to be a lot self-congratulatory bashing of reductive
materialism on this
list without noticing that it has provided all the knowledge of advanced
On 26 September 2013 10:56, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/25/2013 2:57 PM, LizR wrote:
On 26 September 2013 08:23, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
There seems to be a lot self-congratulatory bashing of reductive
materialism on this list without noticing that it has
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 08:46:25AM +1000, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:38:47PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
I know not of these hundreds of posts that you speak.
You don't?? If you
into Bruno's step and gives the
impression one ought to feel indeterminacy, when by the rules of the game one
should not.
All the best.
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:59:01 +1000
From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Thu, Sep
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 02:34:10AM +, chris peck wrote:
I'll have a pop at this because I have a problem too.
I get stuck on Bruno's 'proof' at the point where the comp practitioner,
about to be duplicated and sent to Washington and Moscow, is asked to
estimate his chances of arriving
On 9/25/2013 7:34 PM, chris peck wrote:
I'll have a pop at this because I have a problem too.
I get stuck on Bruno's 'proof' at the point where the comp practitioner, about to be
duplicated and sent to Washington and Moscow, is asked to estimate his chances of
arriving at Moscow. Allegedly I
Anyone who has a problem with Bruno's teleportation thought experiment
should logically have the same problem with the MWI. If for the sake of
argument I use a quantum event to decide whether to get on a plane to
Moscow or Washington, then my diary will contain one or the other
destination - in
On 9/25/2013 8:37 PM, LizR wrote:
Anyone who has a problem with Bruno's teleportation thought experiment should logically
have the same problem with the MWI. If for the sake of argument I use a quantum event to
decide whether to get on a plane to Moscow or Washington, then my diary will contain
but certain about surviving in the other? Do you see my problem?
All the best.
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 22:00:55 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 9/25/2013 8:37 PM, LizR wrote:
Anyone who has a problem
On 9/25/2013 10:27 PM, chris peck wrote:
Hi Liz
Interesting. There's another thought experiment, or gambit, MWIers raise involving
quantum immortality.
In this, some quantum event at time t triggers a gun to shoot (or not shoot)
the MWIer.
Traditionally, MWIers argue the only reason they
On 23 Sep 2013, at 03:16, Russell Standish wrote:
John, for the sake of the rest of us, it would be useful for you to
summarise just what the problems were that you found with the first three
steps.
In other words will I pretend that the last 2 years never happened and
hundreds of posts
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 01:57:00PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On 23 Sep 2013, at 03:16, Russell Standish wrote:
John, for the sake of the rest of us, it would be useful for you to
summarise just what the problems were that you found with the first three
steps.
In other words will I
Please? If there are any problems with comp apart from the argument from
incredulity, and arguments which assume their consequences (e.g. starting
from an assumed primary materialist premise), I'd love to know wha they
are.. and Bruno will have the chance to get a proper job :)
On 25
The main problem with comp that I see is the presentation problem.
Computation requires no sights, sounds, smells, flavors, feelings, etc, not
does it make sense that any of these could be intentionally or accidentally
generated by computation alone. Comp does not seem to refer to the universe
On 25 September 2013 13:21, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The main problem with comp that I see is the presentation problem.
Computation requires no sights, sounds, smells, flavors, feelings, etc, not
does it make sense that any of these could be intentionally or accidentally
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 06:21:12PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The main problem with comp that I see is the presentation problem.
Computation requires no sights, sounds, smells, flavors, feelings, etc, not
does it make sense that any of these could be intentionally or accidentally
On 25 September 2013 13:38, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
This is also true of materialism. Whether you think this is a problem
or not depends on whether you think the hard problem is a problem or not.
Indeed. I was about to say something similar (to the effect that it's hard
On 9/24/2013 6:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 September 2013 13:38, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
This is also true of materialism. Whether you think this is a problem
or not depends on whether you think the hard problem is a problem or not.
On 25 September 2013 15:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2013 6:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 September 2013 13:38, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
This is also true of materialism. Whether you think this is a problem
or not depends on whether you think the hard
On 9/24/2013 8:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 September 2013 15:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2013 6:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 September 2013 13:38, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
This is
On 25 September 2013 16:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2013 8:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 September 2013 15:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2013 6:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 September 2013 13:38, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
This is also
On 9/24/2013 9:21 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 September 2013 16:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2013 8:44 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 September 2013 15:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2013 6:32
On 25 September 2013 16:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Right. Idle isn't exactly the right word. I think that like life
consciousness will be seen to be different things and there will be
distinguished different kinds of consciousness and we'll design robots to
have more or less
On 9/24/2013 9:45 PM, LizR wrote:
On 25 September 2013 16:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Right. Idle isn't exactly the right word. I think that like life
consciousness
will be seen to be different things and there will be distinguished
different
On 23 September 2013 17:23, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Both evolutionary theory and the natural selection have a history that
predates Darwin. But we know of them through Darwin. Darwin wasn't great
for having these ideas, because they didn't originate with him. He was
great
On 22 Sep 2013, at 18:29, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote
what is the meaning of computation is physical?
Which word didn't you understand?
The word is, in the sentence computation is physical.
That sounds as if it were written by a
On 9/23/2013 12:40 AM, LizR wrote:
On 23 September 2013 17:23, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
mailto:chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Both evolutionary theory and the natural selection have a history that
predates
Darwin. But we know of them through Darwin. Darwin wasn't great
chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
Both evolutionary theory and the natural selection have a history that
predates Darwin.
The idea that non human animals might somehow evolve goes back as far as
Aristotle, but as for Natural selection the only one who has a legitimate
claim of beating
On 9/23/2013 11:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I'm just now reading a reading a very long paper (more of a short
book, actually) by Scott Aaronson, on the subject of free will, which
is one of those rare works in that topic that is not
gibberish. Suffice it to say, that if he is ultimately
On 23 Sep 2013, at 20:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/23/2013 11:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I'm just now reading a reading a very long paper (more of a short
book, actually) by Scott Aaronson, on the subject of free will,
which
is one of those rare works in that topic that is not
gibberish.
On 23 Sep 2013, at 03:16, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 12:29:30PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
Bruno, if you have something new to say about this proof of yours
then
say it, but don't pretend that 2 years of correspondence and
hundreds of
posts in which I list things that
On 23 Sep 2013, at 19:56, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
If you can repair the blunders made in the first 3 steps then
I'll read step 4, until then doing so would be ridiculous.
Even this is ridiculous, as step 4, 5, 6, 7
On 21 Sep 2013, at 19:36, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
And the, what is the meaning of computation is physical?
Which word didn't you understand?
The word is, in the sentence computation is physical.
It looks to me that this consists
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote
what is the meaning of computation is physical?
Which word didn't you understand?
The word is, in the sentence computation is physical.
That sounds as if it were written by a lawyer. Scientists don't need to
consult a
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 12:29:30PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
Bruno, if you have something new to say about this proof of yours then
say it, but don't pretend that 2 years of correspondence and hundreds of
posts in which I list things that I didn't understand about the first 3
steps didn't
That sounds potentially interesting. I too have stalled at point 8 (I think
- the MGA, anyway).
Would it be http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.0159v2.pdf
Well, whether it is or not, that looks worth a read, if I can get my head
around it.
On 23 September 2013 13:16, Russell Standish
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 01:14:13PM +1200, LizR wrote:
That sounds potentially interesting. I too have stalled at point 8 (I think
- the MGA, anyway).
Would it be http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.0159v2.pdf
Well, whether it is or not, that looks worth a read, if I can get my head
around it.
Yes
Thanks! If I have enough time (and paper in the printer :) I will give it a
go --- since I seem to have unfortunately lost interest in finishing BOI
after the (in)famous Why are flowers beautiful? chapter.
On 23 September 2013 13:37, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, Sep
. That only 'an idiot' would fail to see it. 200 years ago though,
and certainly in 1600s, that just wasn't the case.
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2013 12:29:30 -0400
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
From: johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 , Bruno
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it worse than that. Doesn't the smartphone (or cel
phone) radiate even when you're not talking, so that the system knows where you are if
someone calls you? The only improvement in efficiency I could suggest is electronically
steerable antennae to reduce the
201 - 300 of 451 matches
Mail list logo
