On 24 Feb 2014, at 17:59, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 16:42, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014, at 15:38, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 13:53, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I am not sure why David switched the term. Perhaps to avoid the
On 24 Feb 2014, at 18:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:03:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Feb 2014, at 15:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
This might be a more concise way of making my argument:
It is my claim that CTM has overlooked the necessity to describe
On 24 Feb 2014, at 18:45, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
computational reality is what computes the actual information states
of the observable universe.
So you assume a primitive physical reality? This makes sense with your
p-time, but it is incoherent with the assumption that we can survive
On 24 Feb 2014, at 18:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
PS: I have no idea what you are asking in the following question. If
you make it clear I'll try to respond
You did not answer my question about the relation between p-time
and 1-person. If I accept an artificial brain, and that
On 24 Feb 2014, at 23:07, LizR wrote:
And a nice manifold of red wine. (After a few of those it may be p-
time of course...)
With moderation, of course.
A damn!, the red wine is in the basement, near the black hole, no idea
where is the horizon, I will no try, and take non hard drug
Craig,
Pardon me but what does CTM stand for?
Edgar
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 9:55:27 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
This might be a more concise way of making my argument:
It is my claim that CTM has overlooked the necessity to describe the
method, mechanism, or arithmetic principle
On 24 February 2014 03:38, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:22:36 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February 2014 19:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 10:35:33 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February
On 24 Feb 2014, at 14:16, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Pardon me but what does CTM stand for?
It is Computationalist Theory of Mind. It is another name of
computationalism or comp, although usually comp refers explicitly to
the very weak (logically) version of it.
Usually CTM assumes that the
On Monday, February 24, 2014 8:17:02 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 03:38, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:22:36 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February 2014 19:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On
Thanks Bruno...
As an advocate of a computational reality, I certainly believe that part of
that universe (subsets) is computational minds, though I suspect we'd
disagree about most of the rest
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 8:53:37 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014,
On Monday, February 24, 2014 8:16:00 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Craig,
Pardon me but what does CTM stand for?
Computational Theory of Mind.
Someone mentioned that they are tired of the word 'Comp', and I agree.
Something about it I never liked. Makes it sound friendly and natural,
On 23 Feb 2014, at 15:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
This might be a more concise way of making my argument:
It is my claim that CTM has overlooked the necessity to describe the
method, mechanism, or arithmetic principle by which computations are
encountered.
My hypothesis, drawn from both
Craig,
All this discussion about replacing selves or brains is entirely a matter
of definition, and thus pretty much a meaningless discussion.
It is clear that if we could replace in EVERY last detail, that the new
self would be an exact duplicate of the old self with the exact same mental
Craig,
I agree too. Makes it sound low brow and pop culturish, like some consumer
product for housewives. But that's a good way to distinguish it from my
computational reality.
:-)
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 8:58:19 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014
On 24 February 2014 13:53, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I am not sure why David switched the term. Perhaps to avoid the confusion
between comp and its assumptions (like John Clark does sometimes), or
perhaps just to allude to the fact that it is a common theory used by most
cognitive
On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:21:15 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 13:56, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Sure, but there is a difference between restoring damaged parts of a
living person's brain and putting parts synthetic brain parts and
On 24 Feb 2014, at 15:38, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 13:53, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I am not sure why David switched the term. Perhaps to avoid the
confusion between comp and its assumptions (like John Clark does
sometimes), or perhaps just to allude to the fact
On 24 February 2014 16:01, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:21:15 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 13:56, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, but there is a difference between restoring damaged parts of a
living person's
On Monday, February 24, 2014 11:43:28 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 16:01, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:21:15 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 13:56, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014, at 14:57, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Thanks Bruno...
As an advocate of a computational reality, I certainly believe that
part of that universe (subsets) is computational minds, though I
suspect we'd disagree about most of the rest
You are welcome, but may be David meant
On 24 February 2014 16:42, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Feb 2014, at 15:38, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 13:53, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I am not sure why David switched the term. Perhaps to avoid the confusion
between comp and its assumptions (like
On 24 Feb 2014, at 15:10, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Craig,
I agree too. Makes it sound low brow and pop culturish, like some
consumer product for housewives. But that's a good way to
distinguish it from my computational reality.
But please tell us what it is. computational is a technical
On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:03:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Feb 2014, at 15:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
This might be a more concise way of making my argument:
It is my claim that CTM has overlooked the necessity to describe the
method, mechanism, or arithmetic principle by
On 24 February 2014 16:59, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You seem to be answering a different question. I thought it was a direct
entailment of your theory that no part of the brain could be substituted
purely functionally without affecting the consciousness of the person
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:16:26 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 16:59, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You seem to be answering a different question. I thought it was a direct
entailment of your theory that no part of the brain could be
Bruno,
As I've stated on many occasions, computational reality is what computes
the actual information states of the observable universe. It is what
computes what science observes and measures, whatever that may be.
Your comp starts with an abstract assumption without any empirical
Bruno,
PS: I have no idea what you are asking in the following question. If you
make it clear I'll try to respond
You did not answer my question about the relation between p-time and
1-person. If I accept an artificial brain, and that clock of that
artigicial brain can be improved, I
I prefer the Pasta theory of the universe... the universe is generated with
pasta... My pasta universe starts with the actual observable state of the
universe and works backward. That absolutely ensures that it is correct by
definition even before we might know what all of those actual pastas are
Quentin,
The typical adolescent response of someone unable to even understand the
post he is responding to.
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:57:17 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I prefer the Pasta theory of the universe... the universe is generated
with pasta... My pasta universe
blablabla... genius.
2014-02-24 19:01 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
Quentin,
The typical adolescent response of someone unable to even understand the
post he is responding to.
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:57:17 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I prefer the
On Monday, February 24, 2014 3:38:40 AM UTC, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:22:36 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February 2014 19:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 10:35:33 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February
On 24 February 2014 17:38, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
No, that's the point of the analogy, so you can see for yourself why the
question is not reasonable. The question posed over and over to me here has
been some variation of this same But if the world didn't work the way that
Quentin,
Again you confirm my contention, and confirm your inability to state any
inconsistency between P-time and relativity whatsoever.
You can blubber forever and that will remain the same...
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:05:01 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
blablabla... genius.
On 24 February 2014 17:41, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, it would be possible to have part of your brain removed and not be
aware of any difference also - my point though is, 'so what?' You can be
dead and not know the difference either, presumably.
Are you making some
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:10:03 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 17:38, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
No, that's the point of the analogy, so you can see for yourself why the
question is not reasonable. The question posed over and over to me
2014-02-24 20:02 GMT+01:00 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:10:03 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 17:38, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
No, that's the point of the analogy, so you can see for yourself why the
question is not
On Monday, February 24, 2014 2:06:24 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-24 20:02 GMT+01:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:10:03 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 17:38, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
No,
On 24 February 2014 19:02, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:10:03 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 17:38, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
No, that's the point of the analogy, so you can see for yourself why the
question is
2014-02-24 20:24 GMT+01:00 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 2:06:24 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-24 20:02 GMT+01:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:10:03 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014
On Monday, February 24, 2014 7:55:35 PM UTC, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 19:02, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:10:03 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 24 February 2014 17:38, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
No,
On 24 February 2014 20:15, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
MHO the stage for bickering comes after a lot of this goes down.
Prematurally, you've got a virtual cast iron guar antee, however long this
runs, it's endings will the familiar territory, in line with all the other
instances you participated
On Monday, February 24, 2014 3:11:47 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-24 20:24 GMT+01:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 2:06:24 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-24 20:02 GMT+01:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com:
Bless your noddly appendages.
On 25 February 2014 06:57, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
I prefer the Pasta theory of the universe... the universe is generated
with pasta... My pasta universe starts with the actual observable state
of the universe and works backward. That
On 25 February 2014 06:57, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
My pasta theory conforms to standard scientific method in this respect
while yours does not.
Tch. You've got a sauce.
PS bless your noodly appendages!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
2014-02-24 19:01 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
Quentin,
The typical adolescent response of someone unable to even understand the
post he is responding to.
For some reason my irony meter just exploded.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
, 2014 12:57 pm
Subject: Re: CTM Attack and Redemption
I prefer the Pasta theory of the universe... the universe is generated with
pasta... My pasta universe starts with the actual observable state of the
universe and works backward. That absolutely ensures that it is correct by
definition even
On 25 February 2014 11:02, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Pasta with meatballs and the meat balls are higher dimensional energy
fields and the tomato sauce is the rolling tide of higgs singlets reacting
with all.
And spaghetti for the strings, sprinkled with little qubits of pepper.
--
You
And a nice manifold of red wine. (After a few of those it may be p-time
of course...)
On 25 February 2014 11:06, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 February 2014 11:02, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Pasta with meatballs and the meat balls are higher dimensional energy
fields and the tomato
This might be a more concise way of making my argument:
It is my claim that CTM has overlooked the necessity to describe the
method, mechanism, or arithmetic principle by which computations are
encountered.
My hypothesis, drawn from both direct human experience as well as
experience with
On 23 February 2014 14:55, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
This might be a more concise way of making my argument:
It is my claim that CTM has overlooked the necessity to describe the
method, mechanism, or arithmetic principle by which computations are
encountered.
My
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 10:35:33 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February 2014 14:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
This might be a more concise way of making my argument:
It is my claim that CTM has overlooked the necessity to describe the
method,
On 23 February 2014 19:55, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 10:35:33 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February 2014 14:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
This might be a more concise way of making my argument:
It is my claim that CTM
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:22:36 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February 2014 19:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 10:35:33 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 23 February 2014 14:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
This
REDEMPTION
i) No redemption.
Below in the Kingdom of Earth,
her firstborn son is gone.
her redemption is lost.
Cain ? She cries out.
?nd where is Abel ?
And the man I possessed ?
In the night, Cain stumbles eastward toward Eden,
Blood on his hands.
A bolt of lightning splits
54 matches
Mail list logo
