On 26 Jul 2009, at 16:52, David Nyman wrote:
Thanks to everyone who responded to my initial sally on dreams and
machines. Naturally I have arrogated the right to plagiarise your
helpful comments in what follows, which is an aphoristic synthesis of
my understanding of the main points that
On 27 Jul 2009, at 03:04, m.a. wrote:
Bruno,
I am indeed ready to pursue further and since we'll be
covering both topics anyhow, I would prefer that you choose which
would be the most natural next step for us.
Hmm... The problem is that it is natural or not according to
On 27/07/2009, at 11:40 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Hi Kim,
RITSIAR means real in the sense that I am real.
Cheers
Brian
Kim Jones wrote:
Could somebody kindly tell me/explain to me what RITSIAR means? I
cannot find any explanation of this in the threads which mention it.
Sorry to be
On 27 July, 02:45, Colin Hales c.ha...@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
The assumption in your comments is that there is/needs to be 'mind
stuff' is wrong. /ALL/ of it is some undescribed stuff, not just that
resulting in mind. The assumption in your statement is that we need
something extra
On 27 July, 12:25, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Hopefully, by the end of this conversation
without end I will know in what sense I am real!!
Don't count on it ;-)
D
On 27/07/2009, at 11:40 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Hi Kim,
RITSIAR means real in the sense that I am
On 27 July, 09:31, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The UDA is a reasoning which shows that once we postulate an
ontological physical universal, it is impossible to recover the
first person from it
Do you mean to say that we can't recover the 1-person from a physical
universe on the
On 27 July, 12:25, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Could somebody kindly tell me/explain to me what RITSIAR means? I
cannot find any explanation of this in the threads which mention it.
On a (slightly) more serious note, to the best of my recollection the
expression 'real in the
On 27 Jul 2009, at 14:57, David Nyman wrote:
On 27 July, 09:31, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The UDA is a reasoning which shows that once we postulate an
ontological physical universal, it is impossible to recover the
first person from it
Do you mean to say that we can't
On 27 Jul 2009, at 16:25, David Nyman wrote:
On 27 July, 09:46, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
... yet, the shadows of braids and links(*) appear somehow in the two
matter hypostases, and this in a context where space (not juts time)
has to be a self-referential context, in that
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Jul 2009, at 16:52, David Nyman wrote:
Thanks to everyone who responded to my initial sally on dreams and
machines. Naturally I have arrogated the right to plagiarise your
helpful comments in what follows, which is an aphoristic synthesis of
my understanding
On 27 Jul 2009, at 16:07, ronaldheld wrote:
I am following, but have not commented, because there is nothing
controversal.
Cool. Even the sixth first steps of UDA?
When you are done, can your posts be consolidated into a paper or a
document that can be read staright through?
I
Hi,
OK, I will come back on the square root of 2 later.
We have talked on sets.
Sets have elements, and elements of a set define completely the set,
and a set is completely defined by its elements.
Example: here is a set of numbers {1, 2, 3}
and a set of sets of numbers {{1, 2}, {3}, { }}.
2009/7/27 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
That's a bit of a straw man you're refuting. I've never heard anyone claim
that
the mind is the brain. The materialist claim is that the mind is what the
brain does, i.e. the mind is a process. That's implicit in COMP, the idea
that
2009/7/27 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
So the brain (i.e. what the eye can see) can't be the mind; but the
intuition remains that mind and brain might be correlated by some
inclusive conception that would constitute our ontology: Kant's great
insight stands.
It's more than an
2009/7/27 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
Actually, the real axiom is a self-duplicability principle. According
to the duplicability, you will have the whole of AUDA remaining
correct and even complete, at the propositional level, for many
gods (non emulable entities). The theology of the
http://www.mindmatter.de/mmabstracts7_1.htm
http://www.mindmatter.de/mmabstracts7_1.htm
*Intentionality and Computationalism: A Diagonal Argument *
Laureano Luna Cabanero, Department of Philosophy, IES Francisco Marin,
Siles, Spain, and Christopher G. Small, Department of Statistics and
David Nyman wrote:
2009/7/27 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
That's a bit of a straw man you're refuting. I've never heard anyone claim
that
the mind is the brain. The materialist claim is that the mind is what the
brain does, i.e. the mind is a process. That's implicit in COMP,
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
I think that's a misuse of ontology. When we discuss the atomic theory of
matter the ontology is a set of elementary particles, including their
couplings
and dynamics.
I think most of us are using ontology in
Brent,
Another example of your somewhat non-standard definition 2 usage:
First of all I think epistemology precedes ontology. We first get
knowledge of some facts and then we create an ontology as part
of a theory to explain these facts.
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Rex
19 matches
Mail list logo
