On 23 September 2013 17:23, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Both evolutionary theory and the natural selection have a history that
predates Darwin. But we know of them through Darwin. Darwin wasn't great
for having these ideas, because they didn't originate with him. He was
great
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 12:11 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Telmo:
would you have (by any chance...) a brief identification of something that
comes to your mind when speaking about l i f e ? (And please, forget
about thebio of this Earthbound Terrestrial Biosphere).
(To
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Sep 2013, at 15:10, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Sep 2013, at 16:51, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Bruno Marchal
On 22 Sep 2013, at 18:29, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote
what is the meaning of computation is physical?
Which word didn't you understand?
The word is, in the sentence computation is physical.
That sounds as if it were written by a
http://multisenserealism.com/2013/09/22/light-vision-and-optics/
[image:
MSR_Visual]http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/msr_visual.jpg
In the above diagram, the nature of light is examined from a semiotic
perspective. As with Piercian sign
On 23 Sep 2013, at 01:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, September 22, 2013 3:03:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Sep 2013, at 05:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, September 21, 2013 12:18:19 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 20 Sep 2013, at 20:20, Craig Weinberg
On 9/23/2013 12:40 AM, LizR wrote:
On 23 September 2013 17:23, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
mailto:chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Both evolutionary theory and the natural selection have a history that
predates
Darwin. But we know of them through Darwin. Darwin wasn't great
On Monday, September 23, 2013 12:45:00 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
For 'life', in contrast to 'being alive', I'd add reproduction. That's the
real defining
characteristic of life.
You don't have to reproduce to be alive though, and any chain reaction can
be considered reproduction. To me,
On 23 Sep 2013, at 05:43, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I don't think the simulated typhoon would make the virtual person
feel wet any more than it would make them smell seaweed. Why would it?
Because I assume comp.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message
chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
Both evolutionary theory and the natural selection have a history that
predates Darwin.
The idea that non human animals might somehow evolve goes back as far as
Aristotle, but as for Natural selection the only one who has a legitimate
claim of beating
On 9/23/2013 11:49 AM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent - REPRODUCTION - in our 'biology' there is only one strain that reproduces:
the prokaryotes by mitosis. In most(?) heterosex procreation you take TWO DIFFERENT
ENTITIES and by combining some products of them you CREATE a third one, not
On 23 Sep 2013, at 12:41, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 21 Sep 2013, at 15:10, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 19 Sep 2013, at 16:51, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Telmo, thanks for your effort of replying.
However... (there is always one):
You haven't seen ALL and the BEST robots, have you? Batteries are some
primitive gadgets for a starting line of development. What is deeply? And
what is that 'energy' you invoke? (And: YES, they CAN rebuild damaged parts
Brent - REPRODUCTION - in our 'biology' there is only one strain that
reproduces: the prokaryotes by mitosis. In most(?) heterosex procreation
you take TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES and by combining some products of them you
CREATE a third one, not identical to any of the procreating parents.
I have a profound respect to Dawkins, but why should I believe him?
Why would you restrict the 'genes' to those (physical worldly -
conventional scientific) measurements that show a 'match' to the 'parents'
similarly superficially mapped genes? All 'networks' go infinite with
branching further and
On Monday, September 23, 2013 2:21:20 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Sep 2013, at 05:43, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I don't think the simulated typhoon would make the virtual person feel wet
any more than it would make them smell seaweed. Why would it?
Because I assume comp.
lol.
On 9/23/2013 12:32 PM, John Mikes wrote:
I have a profound respect to Dawkins, but why should I believe him?
Why would you restrict the 'genes' to those (physical worldly - conventional scientific)
measurements that show a 'match' to the 'parents' similarly superficially mapped genes?
That's
Bruno wrote: of Whom? Conscious applies to person and they all have some
I, even if they cannot be sure what it is, and perceive it in many ways.
Here I am again in the dichotomy with Brent about 'alive' and 'life':
'conscious' and 'consciousness'! I arrived at the latter as response to
relations
On 9/23/2013 11:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I'm just now reading a reading a very long paper (more of a short
book, actually) by Scott Aaronson, on the subject of free will, which
is one of those rare works in that topic that is not
gibberish. Suffice it to say, that if he is ultimately
On 23 Sep 2013, at 20:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/23/2013 11:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I'm just now reading a reading a very long paper (more of a short
book, actually) by Scott Aaronson, on the subject of free will,
which
is one of those rare works in that topic that is not
gibberish.
On 23 Sep 2013, at 03:16, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 12:29:30PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
Bruno, if you have something new to say about this proof of yours
then
say it, but don't pretend that 2 years of correspondence and
hundreds of
posts in which I list things that
On 23 Sep 2013, at 19:56, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
If you can repair the blunders made in the first 3 steps then
I'll read step 4, until then doing so would be ridiculous.
Even this is ridiculous, as step 4, 5, 6, 7
On 23 Sep 2013, at 20:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2013 2:21:20 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Sep 2013, at 05:43, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I don't think the simulated typhoon would make the virtual person
feel wet any more than it would make them smell
On 9/23/2013 12:16 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Why do you hold 'computational resources' as fundamental to being alive?
Computation is a human mental peculiarity - an 'evolved resource' by '_being_ alive'
(whatever that means).
In the sense of writing equations and numbers down or doing arithmetic.
On 9/23/2013 3:00 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 12:11 AM, John Mikesjami...@gmail.com wrote:
Telmo:
would you have (by any chance...) a brief identification of something that
comes to your mind when speaking about l i f e ? (And please, forget
about thebio of this
On 23 Sep 2013, at 21:44, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno wrote: of Whom? Conscious applies to person and they all have
some I, even if they cannot be sure what it is, and perceive it in
many ways.
Here I am again in the dichotomy with Brent about 'alive' and 'life':
'conscious' and
26 matches
Mail list logo
