We could be automatons with no qualia - and nobody would no the difference. Even a brain scan wouldn't show it. The automatons would still process and recognize red. It just wouldn't be represented to them.
So we can't ever point to the qualia and say 'here it is!'
or disprove it
but we know it exists.
IMO, that leaves a crack in the best arguments against the existence of a soul, even those made by most well reasoned, empirical skeptical secular person you might ever meet.
So if you believe in the soul - that's a useful thing to have at your disposal if you need to defend the belief.
The idea of personal identity relying on the soul is fully explored
So now we're exploring the, 'what if there is no soul', and somehow our living experience doesn't depend on that. Then what would personal identity consist in
We can still distinguish between 'mental states' (the experience of those things, as we just discussed) and 'brain states' (the corresponding activity in the brain)
If our mental states could somehow happen on a positronic brain (again, just say it were possible)
Personal identity - we're chatting about an idea in philosophy to apply some math to it
Yep - good question
That's why thought experiments can be useful
Because before we knew about multiple identities
we were thought experimenting with the idea of two people being fused into one (as a counterpart of one person being fissioned into two)
Then in the 80s - multiple personalities became a big thing
and we had been discussing it before. So it wasn't like this tsunami that toppled all of the thinking on identity up to that point. I think that's the merit in these weird 'what if' cases
Your 'self' is what we usually mean when we say 'who am I' and you say - I am a 99 year old man from kentucky who votes republican and plays the saxophone
So multiple personality is like 'multiple selves'
But the problem is that in multiple personality
each personality cannot access the memories of the others (or often cannot)
If the one of the personalities is continuous with the original person (but in a less explicit way) then he is still mentally continuous - so he is the same
(sometimes you might not remember things from your life, but all of your thoughts and everything in your mind at each earlier point lead your mind to the state it is in at this moment. That chain is personal identity, and memory lets us know that there is such a chain and about our chain)
I could also say that I am in a pissy mood because I decided to think about how much I dislike bats (I do) all day. and then got hit in the head and forgot I was thinking about bats
but my mood is still a little pissy.
Or that I create the intention to go shopping when I find I am out of gummy bears
Later that day, I go shopping - but I don't remember when I decided to go shopping
@Charlie I was told it should be preferable to tell them the truth about the knowledge I possess. They claimed I didn't want to tell them about all schools I graduated from.
But, I interviewed a lot of people - we had to get really good at it, because qualifications arent exactly important to be a window cleaner, so we had to look at other things that I think are more subtle. That was the hardest part, by far.
Yeah, but that they said that - to me that says they were pissed off
Or annoyed
Because it's a bit of a kick in the nuts.
I mean, maybe it's just me, but of all the ways you could decline a candidate - that one's one of the bitchiest ways you could do it (for want of a better word)
I had a chess coach - his theory was that you were learning the most when you were losing 25% of the games you played, and playing your best each time.
@Chris'ssis have you read 'how to win friends and influence people'? It's not as flashy a book as it sounds. It's short, simple, and gives examples of what makes a person likeable.
You probably are likeable - but even more so. I read it, and it changed how I approach people
Yeah, I remember reading about some autistic or high-asbergers kid with no social intuition (not that that's anyone here) who read it. And he just followed its rules like they were rules in a program
and seemed to have a low-average quality social life after that
Is this an allowed operation to calculate the Lambert W function as a power series up to infinity, or is there some trouble in defining it this way?
Mathematica programs:
Clear[x, a, nn, b, z]
nn = 40;
z = 2;
a = Series[Exp[-x], {x, N[Log[z], 50], nn}];
b = Normal[InverseSeries[Series[x/a, {x, ...
Programming and mathematics is really one and the same thing, except that mathematicians don't understand programming and programmers don't understand mathematics.
Anyone who shows that they're willing to be stubborn in an interview - probably values being stubborn over a job - and I don't want to have to manage that person(if you even can manage that person)
Chris, I don't doubt Ian's right. But only because I actually want you to get this. May I say my experience has taught me never to underestimate how little what ought to matter matters.
I think it's frustrating, because it's unjust, in my opinion. But - it's not something we can change. So in such cases we have to adapt so that our talents can be made useful.
i have this paper
http://www.sysmath.com/jweb_xtkxyfzx/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=10691
and i dont understand how to prove in page 3 that $\overline{c}$ is a critical value
please help me
Thank you.
@MatsGranvik interesting, a thought just occurred to me recently of some ideas floating around quite awhile.... "mathematical proofs are like computer programs that run in a human's head".... =D
This thread is used to record significant events in the life of Math.StackExchange. (There are also anniversary posts written from personal perspectives of contributing users.)
Where this idea comes from. Long ago, on a distant website, a user asked "What's the story behind MathOverflow?". Mari...
interested in collatz. anyone else who likes hard unsolved problems, empirical attacks, datamining-like approaches, TCS-angles etc... plz drop by my blog!
I was wondering if there is a good bibliography of attempts to investigate the Collatz conjecture as a formal grammar? (or any other attempts in the CS community to deal with this class of generative phenomena & their "halting" properties).