On 06 Oct 2012, at 21:27, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/6/2012 2:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Oct 2012, at 17:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/6/2012 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Oct 2012, at 09:35, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Bruno,
You wrote:
As the cow-boy guessed right
Hi Roger:
... and cognitive science , which study the hardware and evolutionary
psychology (that study the software or mind) assert that this is true.
The Kant idea that even space and time are creations of the mind is crucial
for the understanding and to compatibilize the world of perceptions
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
He's got it all mixed up.
Physics deals with objects extended in space. Things.
Metaphysics deals with inextended objects. Ideas.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/7/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/7/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Evgenii Rudnyi
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-06, 13:25:53
Subject: Maxwell on Metaphysics and Theology
Hi John Clark
Unless computers can deal with inextended objects such as
mind and experience, they cannot be conscious.
Consciousness is direct experience, computers can only deal in descriptions of
experience.
Everything that a computer does is, to my knowledge, at least
in principle
On 07 Oct 2012, at 12:32, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Hi Roger:
... and cognitive science , which study the hardware and
evolutionary psychology (that study the software or mind) assert
that this is true.
Partially true, as both the mainstream cognitive science and
psychology still does
Hi Richard Ruquist
Then where do the CYMs and their properties come from ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/7/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time:
On 07.10.2012 14:04 Roger Clough said the following:
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
He's got it all mixed up.
Physics deals with objects extended in space. Things. Metaphysics
deals with inextended objects. Ideas.
Yet, he was able to develop the theory of electromagnetism.
Evgenii
--
You received
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
I know that, but his theory of electromagnetism is a physical theory,
even if it's hard to pin down the extension property.
Physical theories can tell us nothing about philosophy or mind or God,
since they cannot deal with meaning. Physics is meaningless.
Roger Clough,
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
Don't avoid my question please.
Where do the laws of physics come from ?
One theory is that existence of platonic entities such as numbers is
not ontologically distinct from actual existence. In
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
I know that, but his theory of electromagnetism is a physical theory,
even if it's hard to pin down the extension property.
Physical theories can tell us nothing about philosophy or mind or God,
since
2012/10/7 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 07 Oct 2012, at 12:32, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Hi Roger:
... and cognitive science , which study the hardware and evolutionary
psychology (that study the software or mind) assert that this is true.
Partially true, as both the mainstream
On 07.10.2012 14:44 Roger Clough said the following:
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
I know that, but his theory of electromagnetism is a physical
theory, even if it's hard to pin down the extension property.
Physical theories can tell us nothing about philosophy or mind or
God, since they cannot deal with
With by real computers made of ordinary matter. I mean that the
computers are structures within the mathematical manifold that describe the
physical reality (or the tip of the iceberg).
2012/10/7 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
2012/10/7 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 07 Oct
Hi Roger Clough,
Hi Bruno Marchal
1) That's not subjectivity. That's objectivity. Wrong perspective.
Subjectivity is
the view from within, looking out, not the view from outside
objectively looking in.
1p does refer to a particular person, although indeterminately, but
from outside,
On 07 Oct 2012, at 14:17, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi John Clark
Unless computers can deal with inextended objects such as
mind and experience, they cannot be conscious.
Consciousness is direct experience, computers can only deal in
descriptions of experience.
Everything that a computer does
On 07 Oct 2012, at 14:44, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
I know that, but his theory of electromagnetism is a physical theory,
even if it's hard to pin down the extension property.
Physical theories can tell us nothing about philosophy or mind or God,
since they cannot deal with
On 07 Oct 2012, at 14:56, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
Don't avoid my question please.
Where do the laws of physics come from ?
One theory is that existence of platonic entities such as numbers
On 07 Oct 2012, at 15:14, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.10.2012 14:44 Roger Clough said the following:
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
I know that, but his theory of electromagnetism is a physical
theory, even if it's hard to pin down the extension property.
Physical theories can tell us nothing about
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
One theory is that existence of platonic entities such as numbers is
not ontologically distinct from actual existence. In that case, all
possible universes necessarily exist, and the one that has the laws of
physics
On 07 Oct 2012, at 15:11, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/10/7 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 07 Oct 2012, at 12:32, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Hi Roger:
... and cognitive science , which study the hardware and
evolutionary psychology (that study the software or mind) assert
that
Roger,
If human consciousness comes from attached monads, as I think you have claimed,
then why could not these monads attach to sufficiently complex computers
as well.
Richard
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi John Clark
Unless computers can deal with
Then where do the CYMs and their properties come from ?
Nature, or god- samething.
There may be a programmer
that initiated the chain of universes.
But that programmer is far removed from us.
The god or cosmic consciousness that relates to us
and life in general in this universe is manifested by
On 07 Oct 2012, at 16:45, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
One theory is that existence of platonic entities such as numbers is
not ontologically distinct from actual existence. In that case, all
possible universes
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I think you are currently forgetting the first person indeterminacy. You
seem to forget the fact that if you drop a pen on the ground, it will not
fall on the ground because you are in a computation which support you and a
On Saturday, October 6, 2012 1:56:33 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I'm openly saying that a high school kid can make a robot that behaves
sensibly with just a few transistors.
Only because he
On 07 Oct 2012, at 18:05, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I think you are currently forgetting the first person
indeterminacy. You
seem to forget the fact that if you drop a pen on the ground, it
will not
fall on the
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
I explained in a post above why evolution does not select weels. An
autonomous living being must be topologically connected, and weels are not.
Explaining why Evolution is incompetent does not make it one bit less
incompetent.
On 10/7/2012 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Oct 2012, at 21:27, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/6/2012 2:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Oct 2012, at 17:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/6/2012 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Oct 2012, at 09:35, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Bruno,
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 10/7/2012 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Oct 2012, at 21:27, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/6/2012 2:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Oct 2012, at 17:40, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/6/2012 4:25 AM,
On 10/7/2012 5:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Stephen,
I'm not sure that there is any real disagreement between your view and
Bruno's. It seems more to be a language thing, if anything. When
Bruno refers to a physics, he means the appearance of a physical world
from the perspective of observers.
31 matches
Mail list logo
