Bruno, sorry for taking it jokingly (ref: Steinhart):
Latest research revealed that Shakespeare's oeuvre was not written by William
Shakespeare, but by quite another man named William Shakespeare.
John
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To:
Jason:
your idea sounds sound. I wonder if it is not a variation of the situation
according to which in facto there is only ONE outcome under given
circumstances of the actual OM, but we have the creativity of imagining more
than just the one that occurs?
I formulated this when I did not like
Dear Bruno, allow me to interleave below as [JM]: remarks.
John
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: Speaking about Mathematicalism
Le 09-avr.-07, à 16:40, John M a écrit
Bruno,
addendum to my post before. You wrote:
BM:
But ok, you are just arguing for the non-comp assumption.
[JM]:
No, I just speak about 'another type' comp, a non-digital contraption that
handles meaning, function, without the crutches of the (hypothetical? at least
unidentified) numbers -
?) better arguments. So are my questions.
Best regards
John M
- Original Message -
From: Quentin Anciaux
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Speaking about Mathematicalism
Hello,
While Peter did not answer your question
a dreamed-up) alternative developed sufficiently into a hopeful replacement for
the many millennia evolved 'physical view' of our reductionist conventional
science.
Even the new ways start from there if not in veritable sci-fi.
John M
- Original Message -
From: 1Z
Stathis:
let me keep only your reply-part and ask my question(s):
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?
On 3/25/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL
Bruno, those 'idealistic' definitions from Leibnitz and Descartes are not
experienced in -
- what is called usually as science. Look at the Laws of physics, does
engineering doubt them? The statements of 'logic', arithmetic, etc. etc. are
all believed as FIRM laws. Now that is what I call
Stathis and Brent:
ineresting and hard-to-object sentiments.
Would it not make sense to write instead of
we are (thing-wise) -
the term less static, rather process-wise:
We do (in whatever action)?
John M
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker
To: everything-list
call my 'plenitude' a 'god', outside (not above) OUR
mother-nature AND unidentified to the limit of minimum information. Not sitting
as an old man on cloud.
John M
: Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007
is not sure but does not deny the existence FOR SURE.
The difference, as I feel, between I don't know and I no that no - as I
take Bruno's emphasis. (And I try to use only my own common sense logic).
With StP's #2 I agreed above.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
to the alarm clock, or from unconsciousness. There are different 'levels' to be
included into that noumenon.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Statistical Measure, does
of going through (the) other concepts...
They are all deductions from the (as you put it) primitive material world view,
and its closed model, called physics. At the end of my 'skipped' series you
may find 'numbers', I may wish to go further (but cannot?)
Regards
John M
- Original Message
order.
Random? ditto. Chaos? what we cannot (today) assign to already discovered - YES
- order.
I give some credence to our ignorance (epistemically still undiscovered
parts).
We choose our 'models' to be studied/observed according to our knowledge of
order.
John M
- Original Message
sense as
well.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 5:54 AM
Subject: Re: Statistical Measure, does it matter?
On 3/19/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote
. Not a primitive
John M
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
Tom Caylor wrote:
On Mar 6, 5:19 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote
to
find the world produced by an even simpler rule, that eventually
produces the initial state of our world.
Mindaugas Indriunas
On 3/8/07, John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I feel a misunderstanding here:
origination point IMO is part of the item to be originated, the pertinent
on hold my regret for the greatgrandkids for now.
Regards
John M
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
Le 17-mars-07, à 00:11, Brent
Thanks for a clear mind, Bruno. But isn't it obvious? We can know about what
we don't know ONLY if we do know 'about it'. Copernicus did not know that he
does not know radioactivity. Aristotle did not denigrate the linearity of QM
because he did not know these items.
My 'firm' knowledge of my
it scale-oriented, an infinitesimally close in 1000 orders of
magnitude smaller scale can be 'miles' away. (No 'real' miles implied) -
Best regards
John M
- Original Message -
From: Torgny Tholerus
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:58 AM
to THAT
time. This is the 'reducing': to visualize this part as the total and utter
the Aristotelian maxim.
One can not extrapolate 'total ensemble' characteristics from studying the so
called parts we discovered so far.
We can think only within our already acquired knowledge.
John M
it as free thinking.
*
Bruno, I looked at your 'knots' (my head still spins from them) and agree to
their topological - math view, no need of a material input. Which one was
Alexander's?
Best wishes
John M
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
No virus found in this incoming
grasp.
What nature would that 3rd pole present in the strong force? (I ask this
question, because I did not read about the 3-pole distinction of it).
Cheers
John M
On 3/12/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400
Thanks, Russell, 4 Poles may play bridge.
John
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400, John Mikes wrote:
In the
, and assumption, if I must).
*
I would be happy to see an expansion of what kind of assumption Bruno was
mentioning in the last sentence.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:42 AM
Subject: Re
.
John
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb
question.
Le 10-mars-07, à 18:42, John M a écrit :
I don't deny
conclusions upon assumptions.
No hard feelings, it is MY opinion, and I am absolutely no missionary.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Quentin Anciaux
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
Stathis:
your starting the argument: IF the M-W-I(dea) is valid, it it seems to
imply...which is a bit shaky (what if not?) - the law-like is a breakable
compromise between confro nting arguments. Do I read some denigration of the
White Rabbit? (coming from a wide interpretation of all
, but slightly disagree with (1) statement.
Mindaugas Indriunas
On 3/5/07, John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Mindaugas Indriunas,
what I meant consists of the worldview that we can use
in our speculations only our present cognitive
inventory of our existing mind.
No information
in a narrative, but by no means in the
conventionally outlined scientific method.
John M
--- 明迪 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear John Mikes.
I am sorry for the late response. I will reply only
to 1 part of your
letter:
1 Origin of (our) universe: we have no way to know.
If we do
Breent
your distortion of my words may come from my mindset of a non-IndoEuropean
mothertongue - in English.
I wrote:
...by building further levels on unfounded
assumptions - no matter how fit they may be to a theory we favor...
you wrote:
You imply that our theories are just a matter of
: Believing ...
John M wrote:
Brent,
as usual, you have hard replies. Just one exception:
I do not mean 'each and individual mindset' as the term 'belief system',
but this is hard to explain. Most scientifically educated westerners -
or many religious faithfuls can argue
oxygen, to burn - at
least in THIS universe.)
John M
Original Message -
From: Saibal Mitra
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: Believing in Divine Destiny
The only connection I can think of is as follows. For any
identifying what constitutes a 'different belief system', but 'system'
must be more than just shades of individual differentiation in the details.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 12:32 PM
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
(Brent wrote):
The point is that the simulation doesn't have to simulate the whole
complicated
remarks.
( Theists etc. just wanted to ride that horse in the past. )
The wording that emerges in talks about metaphysics is a mixture of the ancient
denigration and the up-to-date ideas. Is it still fruitful to argue about a
past misnomer?
John M
PS. about 'cause' and 'positivists':
if we
for surprizes?
John M
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL
to 'mend' the ozone hole and recover the pollution-killed
marine life in many seas.
Backward!
Start the teleportation.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Paul King
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: Texas, Georgia
- Original Message -
From: Jason Resch
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:57 PM
Subject: Everything List FAQ/Glossary/Wiki
John M mentioned in a recent post that many on the Everything List may have
conflicting or poor understandings
for it.
With the religious marvels: I look at them with awe, cannot state it is
impossible because 'they' start out beyond reason and say what they please.
The sorry thing is, when a crowd takes it too seriously and kill, blow up, beat
or burn live human beings in that 'belief'. Same, if for money.
John M
there was some effort to write a FAQ for the list. Perhaps we
should give it another try.
Hal Ruhl
At 11:30 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote:
Hal and list:
I do not think anybody fully understands what other listers write, even
if one thinks so.
Or is it only my handicap?
John M
By who's logic?
John M
- Original Message -
From: Torgny Tholerus
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error
Brent Meeker skrev:
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Mark Peaty skrev
to our universe. For this I violate my scepticism
against the Big Bang fable - and consider our universe from BB to dissipation,
the entire history, as evolution.
I am nowhere ready to outline these superstitions.
I can't wait for Bruno's (and others') versions.
John M
and let me join Angelica
?) belief just
to tickle out arguments which I did not consider earlier. But that is my dirty
way.
I am a bad judge and always ready to reconsider.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:54 PM
computerized machine-identity (Oops, no
reference to Loeb). Duo si faciunt (cogitant?) idem, non est idem.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:38 AM
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
Hal and list:
I do not think anybody fully understands what other listers write, even if
one thinks so.
Or is it only my handicap?
John M
- Original Message -
From: Hal Ruhl
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: ASSA
Stathis,
maybe it is a postulate that (in my mind) what you write does not make sense?
A Cc generated/operated by tissue - partially transferred to parts unknown
without (the?) tissue and still functions? I am a simpleminded primitive
peasant, cannot condone that you, a 'thinking' person (no
Stathis:
your concluding sentence is
But my brain just won't let me think this way.
*
Have you been carried away?
Who is your brain to make decisions upon you? (maybe you mean only that the
mechanism of your brain, the main tool YOU use in mental activity, is not
predesigned for such action?)
Stathis:
interesting. See my additional question after your reply
John
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 9:03 AM
Subject: RE: ASSA and Many-Worlds
John Mikes writes:
Stathis:
your
Or of comp, or of multiple universes, or of.
(the list is almost unlimitable).
Proving is tricky. In many cases SOME accept the backwards argument from
phenomena assigned to an originating assumption that is now deemed proven
by it.
Some don't. It depends on evidence in one's personal
Dear Jason,
what William wrote is the best we, humans in 2007AD can find out for the
subject matter. Before 1922 (Hubble's redshift) of course the best was
different. Before...and so on. Considering the best of 2325AD...???
Your applause is similarly dated.
Is Mother Nature (or call her as you
. As John M often says, an atheist already has some
notion of God such as to be able to believe it does not exist.
Now most atheist are already believer in believing religiously in Primary
Matter (a metaphysical entity).
I'am agnostic in both sense. I do not believe in God, nor do I believe
.
I skip the rest of the 'rock-physics'.
Regards
John M
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
John Mikes writes
Subject: Re: Evil ?
John M wrote:
Brent,
sorry if I irritated you - that is felt in your response.
--
You remarked:
( Upon your:
...an unbiased sample, of the available evidence? is showing.
- Who is unbiased? )
You don't have
Stathis:
I will not go that far, nor draw 'magnificent' conclusion about conscious rocks
(I am not talking about the unconscious hysteria of the rhytmic crowd-noise of
teenage immaturity - call them rolling or non-rolloing STONES), - I just try
to call the state of being conscious an effective
Brent, interleaving
John
--- Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John M wrote:
Dear Stathis:
my answer to your quewstion:
Of course not!
There is a belief systems I like and there are
the others I don't.
I just maintain a (maybe misplaced?) humbleness
that I am not the judge
- Evil.
With best regards your voodoo expert
John
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: Evil ?
John M wrote:
Brent,
sorry if I irritated you - that is felt in your response
that they are immune from test. This is where they
fail in their epistemological duty.
You mean the epistemological duty YOU impose? They simply claim to be immune
from YOUR test, they have their own 'test' and 'evidence'.
That was my point.
John M
PS I hate to be i nvolved in arguments
Brent:
I wonder if I can make a readable sense of this rather convoluted mix of posts?
I suggest the original should be at hand, I copy only the parts I reflect to.
My previous post quoted remarks go by a plain JM, the present (new) inclusions
as JMnow paragraphs.
John M
Stathis: wise words. (I find your Elvis - Jesus parable exaggerated).
Values, like ethics or morale is culture related - mostly anti-natural. The
natural way of life is eat the prey, animal and/or plant, kick out a
competitor from your territory, once the lion killed the weaker male: eat his
? I know it 'has' a fabric, but otherwise I
consider it an organizational aid for our universe to understand its details
in our physically-based reductionist view.
John M
Jan 10
- Original Message -
From: James N Rose
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday
Interleaving in bold
John
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:55 AM
Subject: RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)
Tom Caylor writes:
---SKIP
Stathis Papaioannou:
infinite wisdom, infinite love, eternity etc.
John M
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.7/618 - Release Date: 1/6/2007
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
excellent points, which I'm happy to
reply to ..
John M wrote:
--- James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
JR:
...
Make it easier -- a coma patient, inert for decades,
re-wakes alone in
a room, registers its situation and in an instant -
dies. Would that
moment qualify
to destructing
the 'original' design. In a world-dynamism. Complexly.
John M
Mark Peaty writes:
Brent: 'However, all that is needed for the
arguments that appear on this list is to recreate a
rough, functioning copy of the body plus a detailed
reproduction of memory and a brain that functioned
--- James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 03-janv.-07, à 16:36, Stathis Papaioannou wrote
(in more than one
posts) :
Maudlin starts off with the assumption that a
recording being
conscious is obviously absurd, hence the need
for the conscious
machine to
intelligent.
... But a real slave is, I would say by definition, not willing to be slave.
If the question of 'slavery or death' arises, an intelligent and life-loving person would accept (willing?) slavery.
Spartacus did not. I survived a commi regime.
We seem too narrowly labeling a slave.
John
'inanimate').
John M
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 10:59 PM
Subject: RE: The Meaning of Life
Tom Caylor writes:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom Caylor writes (quoting Bruno Marchal
Hal,
so yhou look at it... (at what?) - anyway from the standpoint of the 'physical' model.
Can you come closer totell what you are 'looking at'?
Happy 2007!
John M
- Original Message -
From: Hal Ruhl
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 1:57 PM
I unsubdscribe from the 'everything-list'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Mikes
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
)
interpretation(s), that is arithmetical truth (resp. set theoretical
truth).
I will recall the theory in my reply to Tom Caylor.
Bruno
Le 20-nov.-06, à 18:03, John M a écrit :
Bruno:
How far Occident? Quetzealcoatle was not much better.
Orientals? did they care
Stathis: thanks for the psichiatry class.
You brought in a new questionmark: crazy. As George Levy has proven, we
all are crazy - my contention was: in that case such (general) craziness is
the norm, eo ipso we all are normal.
Is normalcy composed of delusions?
Then why the (p)scientific
Stathis,
no need to argue with me about my 'funny' supposition (just for the fun of
it) - HOWEVER:
1. absolutely certain you can be in whatever is in your mind (i.e.in your
belief system) because that is what you call it so.
Colin's (weak?) solipsism assignes the world -(all of its input-
See please interspaced remarks (JM) as well.
General addition I would start with:
In our present views, based on the limited capabilities of the mind-brain
activity we can only muster for the time being...
(Our mental event-horizon reaches only so far)
John
- Original Message -
From:
Bruno:
a beautiful position statement. Very sage and humane.
Thanks
John
PS: unfortunately the overwhelming majority of humankind is within some kind
of religious belief system and this makes a very lucrative political stock
to crooks (oops: politicians, as contrasted to 'statesmen). Some
See below, please
John
- Original Message -
From: Colin Geoffrey Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7
Addition to my lost and found 1st post in
This is a testing of my mail. Over the p[ast week I received back every
attempt in various modes to get a post into (my?) list-mail. I receive
others all right, not what I try to post.
Yhis 'reply' is to a monsterp-post of Brent all erased ut kept the
reply-form and using it for posting.
I hope this will go through..
Colin wrote
--- Colin Geoffrey Hales
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Addition to my lost and found 1st post in this
topic to
Marc:
I wonder how would you define besides 'universe'
and 'computer' the
IS
?
*
I agree that 'existence' is
test, disregard
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL
copied new address
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL
Colin,
I just remembered in a recent post to another list that ~15 years ago -
thinking of what many think as 'consckiousness', I boiled down to
'acknowledgement and response to information', (which I identified rather as
perceived difference and not the meaningles 'bit'), with the notion
Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Cc: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7
Le 05-nov.-06, à 00:47, John M a écrit :
Bruno,
although I did
Addition to my lost and found 1st post in this topic to
Marc:
I wonder how would you define besides 'universe' and 'computer' the IS
?
*
I agree that 'existence' is more than a definitional question.
Any suggestion yet of an (insufficient?) definition?
(Not Descartes' s I think
announcement of Jürgen Schm , I just ask for the 'other part': what should
we call "a computer"?'Anything' doing Comp? (meaning: whatever is
doing it)?Will the conference be limited to that technically embryonic
gadget - maybe even on a binary bases - we use with that limited
software-input in 2006
as how it may be pertinent
to my thinking.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7
In conscience et mécanisme
gadget - maybe
even on a binary bases - we use with that limited software-input in 2006? a
Turing machine?
John M
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium
--- Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(among a lot other things, quoted and replied to):
I disagree and can show empirical proof that we
scientists only THINK we are not being solipsistic.
I wrote in this sense lately (for the past say 40
years) but now I tend to change my solipsistic mind
Peter;
I try to keep out from the ongoing discussions lately
(no succes to report) but sometimes I get carried
away. I will barge in with 2 remarks into your text
below
John M
--- 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Nyman wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did point out in my last
of a Multiverse), consisting of unlimited
and unlimitedly different universes. We just cannot
think otherwise. (Maybe some of us can on this list).
John Mikes
John M
--- 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
John Mikes writes:
Peter:
... A counterfactual
not persuade others to apply
it. It's my way.
If there is any merit in my ideas for others, be my
guest -that's the reason why I proclaim them. AND: to
get the counter-ideas for my perusal.
John M
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brent wrote:
If you know the domain of your model there won't
--- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But 2 is just another notation for xx.
Why is x 'just another notation for 2? or
why is xx not (just) a notation of 3?
(because Peano said so?)
John M
Le 16-août-06, à 02:25, Brent Meeker a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 14-août
Thanks, Peter
John
--- 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter, let me 'condensate YOUR interspaced remarks
and add my quip to them
one by one. My long blurb was enough once on the
listG.
John Mikes
- Original Message -
From: 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED]
George:
I enjoyed your wits, in Hungarian we call that
to chase one's brain.
I am also happy that you use sane instead of
normal because the norm is insane.
Please do not cut this line (style) of yours!
John Mikes
--- George Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le
With apologies:
In my long post I referred to happenings after the BB
as ...in the 10^42 or ^32 sec of the first sec...
Of course I meant 10^-42 and 10^-32 first
sec-fractions.
John Mikes
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed
Stathis,
thanks for a reply in reason - you said the million
dollar word. (I will come back to 'quote' it).
First:
As Norman, I, too, was a very smart kid (and am still
very modest - ha ha) and had ALL my experiences of a
5-year old at 5. Since then I collected 2-3 additional
'experienced'
Nick: the practical - philosopher.
I refer to my 'misunderstood' expression to Bruno:
NAME Calling
(which was a pun, meaning we call names and assign
meaning to it - in our OWN mindset, then fight for
THIS meaning against another person's meaning called
by the same NAME) - Bruno misunderstood
mind (what is it?) and body (our historical figment of matter,
just explaining phenomena in the evolving empirical enrichment).
None exists without the other.
I better stop because I could not hold water in a detailed wide discussion
against all that knowledge stuffed in this list.
John M
evidence for his position in his reply to my question
today than I had when I asked it.
Not even a (confirmed?) Pysicalexperiment is 'evidendce'. wHO do you call
a 'scientist'? the one who accepts an evidence, or who does not?
Best wishes
John M
- Original Message -
From: Stathis
'original' and lost text, it was snatched
away and mailed.
The two are pretty different.
Redface John
- Original Message -
From: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Stathis:
I know
efficient either.
John M
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: The Irreducibility of Consciousness
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
John M writes (quoting SP):
St:
Are you suggesting
1 - 100 of 340 matches
Mail list logo
