On 16/02/2008, John Ku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In order to really fix this example, it seems he would have to posit
> asteroids whose gravitational effects on each other are genuinely isomorphic
> to all the causal interactions the physical particles making up our brain
> have on each othe
On 16/02/2008, Kaj Sotala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, despite what is claimed, not every physical process can be
> interpreted to do any computation. To do such an interpretation, you
> have to do so after the fact: after all the raindrops have fallen, you
> can assign their positions fo
On 2/15/08, Eric B. Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't know when Lanier wrote the following but I would be interested to
> know what the AI folks here think about his critique (or direct me to a
> thread where this was already discussed). Also would someone be able to
> re-state his rain
--- "Eric B. Ramsay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know when Lanier wrote the following but I would be interested to
> know what the AI folks here think about his critique (or direct me to a
> thread where this was already discussed). Also would someone be able to
> re-state his rainstorm
On 2/16/08, Eric B. Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know when Lanier wrote the following but I would be interested to
> know what the AI folks here think about his critique (or direct me to a
> thread where this was already discussed). Also would someone be able to
> re-state his rai
I don't know when Lanier wrote the following but I would be interested to know
what the AI folks here think about his critique (or direct me to a thread where
this was already discussed). Also would someone be able to re-state his
rainstorm thought experiment more clearly -- I am not sure I get
