On 24 February 2010 07:03, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
With this in mind, I'm not sure what you mean by two undeniably
manifest perpectives. Only ONE seems undeniable to me, and that's
1-p.
My proposal is that seeming is all there is to reality. It's all
surface, no depth.
Hi Rex and Members,
There is a very compelling body of work in logic that allows for
circularity. Please take a look at:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m06t7w0163945350/
and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonwellfounded-set-theory/
It could make some progress toward the
David,
please, do not put me down as a Schopenhauerist. My mini-solipsist views
stem from Colin Hayes' earlier Everything-list posts about perceived
reality as we MAY know it.
I condone the existence (?!) of the world I am part of, just restrict
whatever I CAN know to the content (and function,
2010/2/23 Diego Caleiro diegocale...@gmail.com:
Thanks for this. I have to say, though, that Yablo's approach strikes
me again as waving-away, or defining-out-of-existence, a real issue
that doesn't deserve such treatment. The motive for this seems to be
that academic philosophy has become
Rex Allen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
The idea of a material world that exists fundamentally and uncaused
while giving rise to conscious experience is no more coherent than the
idea that conscious experience
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Charles charlesrobertgood...@gmail.comwrote:
The point about amplification is that all normal detection events
require amplification, such as photographic film, photomultipliers and
so on. We never detect a quantum event directly, but rather the result
of
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Roger Penrose also devotes chapter 7 of his book The Emperor's New Mind
to the topic of Cosmology and the Arrow of Time (parts of which can be
viewed at
On 24 Feb 2010, at 08:22, Rex Allen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 23 Feb 2010, at 06:45, Rex Allen wrote:
It seems to me that there are two easy ways to get rid of the hard
problem.
1) Get rid of 1-p. (A la Dennettian eliminative
Last post didn't show up in email. Seems random.
--- On Tue, 2/23/10, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
-even if there was a one-to-one relationship between distinct computations
and distinct observer-moments with distinct qualia, very similar computations
could produce very similar
On 24 Feb, 16:09, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
We would seek unambiguous evidence
that, in the absence of specific subjective 1-p qualitative states,
certain subsequent 3-p events would be unaccountable without the
hypothesis of 1-p -- 3-p causal influence.
In the unlikely event
I hope you don't mind if I don't quote the entire exchange, which is
now rather long. Unfortunately I only have a short time in which to
reply, as well, so excuse the brevity!
I was under the impression that Price was NOT arguing for any special
kind of retrocausation, but I may have
On Jan 15, 5:15 pm, Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:16 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
stath...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no real distinction between the different possibilities you
mention, but evolution has programmed me to think that I am a single
individual
On 25 February 2010 14:46, Charles charlesrobertgood...@gmail.com wrote:
However, I agree that the statement evolution has programmed us to
think of ourselves as a single individual, etc is rather contentious
as an explanation of why we think this way. It seems to imply that
there are many
On Feb 23, 8:42 pm, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
I think
it's an example of the radiation arrow of time making a time-reversed
process impossible - or maybe just vanishingly improbable. Bruce Kellet
has written a paper about these problems, see pp 35.
14 matches
Mail list logo
