Forgive any typos...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Mazer"
To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
Subject: Re: Many worlds theory of immortality
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 20:05:49 -0400
>
> aet.radal ssg wrote:
>
> > You're assuming that Einstein came up with those ideas through brainstorming.
>
> To me, "brainstorming" just means any creative attempt to come up
> with new tentative speculations about solutions to a problem.
Then like I said, you and I have different definitions for "brainstorming". Mine is specific whereas yours seems arbitray as it includes "any creative attempt to come up with new tenative speculations about solutions to a problem". To each his own.
>Since Einstein's ideas cannot possibly have been anything but tentative
> and speculative before the theory of general relativity was worked
> out, then of course he came up with them through brainstorming. How
> else would he have come up with them, logical deductions from a set
> of axioms whose truth was totally certain? Divine revelation?
Perhaps he did, since your definition is so all inconclusive of any attempt at creative thought. Since I never met the man, nor have read any accounts that document how he did his creative thinking that I can accurtately reference right now, I don't have an opinion one way of the other.
>
> > You're the one that >called the ideas discussed here often as "half-formed".
>
> Yes, and I would define any idea that has not been made into a
> fully-worked out, complete theory as "half-formed".
And...so what's your point?
>Thus, until
> Einstein worked out the full tensor equations of general
> relativity, his ideas were half-formed, by definition. Perhaps you
> woud define the term "half-formed" differently, but that's all I
> meant by that.
>
I think we would agree on the definition of "half-formed". I'm just not making any assumptions on how Einstein did his work or comparing it to what passes for brainstorming on the list...like you are.
> > The problem I used to have (I'm too busy to >even give darn
> > anymore) is when ideas are put out that >don't seem to any
> > thought behind them, prior to being offered.
>
> What if the person has thought about them, but doesn't know
> themselves whether they're any good, and wants feedback from
> others?
I have no problem with that. Never said I did.
>Are you suggesting that before making any proposal, we
> should always feel 100% certain in our own minds about whether the
> proposal is correct or not?
>
I usually don't suggest things...I come right out and say them. What I'm saying is that the posts that I usually have a problem with aren't asking for feedback from others because of a particular problem solving issue. They make these statements and they're usually just left there as if completely valid, or worse, expounded on by others in an even more inaccurate direction so that the original issue is never dealt with. I stated that before, I don't know how many times now.
> > Like my still unanswered question to Saibal about how people
> > who aren't "really" there but exist in >Nash's head can still be
> > considered real in "our universe".
>
> Maybe he didn't know the answer himself--is that a bad thing?
He could have said so, is that a bad thing?
> Anyway, one could argue that simulations in someone's brain are
> just as real as simulations on a computer--
Simulations on a computer aren't real, hence the term "virtual". However, they are more real than a single mental cases' hallucinations.
>do you think A.I.
> shouldn't be considered real beings in our universe?
They should be considered real technologies, not "beings".
>Of course, I
> don't think the "simulations" of characters in a schizophrenic mind
> or in a dream are really being simulated at anything like the same
> level of detail as a genuine A.I. would be.
OK.
>
> > That's what I'm talking about. That's a fully formed idea with
> > absolutely no basis in the objective world >that was just put out
> > there like it meant something, when in fact it's ridiculous.
>
> Whatever gave you the idea that it was a "fully formed idea"?
It was a statement. Close enough for rock 'n' roll.
>Do you think Saibal believed he had a complete theory of how the brain
> of a schizophrenic simulates the imaginary characters he interacts
> with, for example?
I don't make a practice of trying to guess what somebody thinks. I respond to what they say. But I'll say that your question, again, misses the point - Saibal's issue was that the imaginary people were still real in "our universe". It doesn't matter whether Saibal knows how the brain works or understands schizophrenia or how much "processing power" was involved. The key issue is the moment that we're supposed to take whatever it is, that Nash's hallucinating, as being real in our universe. It goes right back to what Stathis was saying about temporal recognition impaired patients having some valid observation on how time works, which he also chose to leave hanging.
>
> Jesse
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
Received on Fri May 27 2005 - 13:39:11 PDT