Hi Craig Weinberg
But not ONE field.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/17/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-16, 15:57:06
Subject: Re: Re: Re:
Hi Bruno Marchal
My concept of the infinite regress problem
is the one that pops up in materialistic theories of
perception. Is there a homunculus in the brain to
experience what the eye sees? And if so, does the homunculus
have a homunculus inside him to interpret that etc. etc, etc.
Dennent
On 11/17/2012 6:33 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
My concept of the infinite regress problem
is the one that pops up in materialistic theories of
perception. Is there a homunculus in the brain to
experience what the eye sees? And if so, does the homunculus
have a homunculus inside him
Hi Bruno Marchal
If the world (not the mind) functions as a digital machine, I speculate
that, following Kant's intuition that there are two primitive
forms of being, time and space, where time is time and space is
the carrier/container of discrete events, then the contingent world
is just
On 16 Nov 2012, at 23:08, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Yes, the question is about a prediction.
And my question is why is the question about prediction rather than
remembering which would make far more sense. Using
Hi Russell Standish
Intelligence is nothing.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/17/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Russell Standish
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-16, 19:10:02
Subject: Re:
Hi Stephen P. King
OK if you're satisfied with a vague feeling of agreement among
multiple observers. That of course would cause you to see fuzzy
or incomplete objects.
The Turing Test was suggested to try to wake you up.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
11/17/2012
Forever is a long
Hi Stephen P. King
Now I see that there is a remote hint of what you say in Leibniz's
metaphysics. Each monad perceives only the phenomenol world,
the world from his own perspective. The actual object is only
truly perceived if perceived by all perceivers.
But that does create the object, the
On Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:26:12 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
But not ONE field.
Neither is the brain or body held together by one field.
[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net] javascript:
11/17/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody
On 11/17/2012 7:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Now I see that there is a remote hint of what you say in Leibniz's
metaphysics. Each monad perceives only the phenomenol world,
the world from his own perspective. The actual object is only
truly perceived if perceived by all
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You mean the Helsinki guy.
OK, so if you are the Helsinki guy and the Helsinki guy is the guy who is
still experiencing Helsinki then the answer to the question what city will
you see when you push that button? is no city at all.
Original Message
More In This Article
*Overview
_Is Quantum Reality Analog after All?_
(http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-quantum-reality-analog-after-all)
Conventional wisdom says that quantum mechanics is a theory of
discreteness,
On 11/17/2012 4:25 PM, meekerdb wrote:
Original Message
More In This Article
*Overview
_Is Quantum Reality Analog after All?_
(http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-quantum-reality-analog-after-all)
Conventional wisdom says that quantum
Hi,
For your entertainment: http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0710/Dark.shtml
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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
In a recent paper entitled
“Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett Interpretation”:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.8447
Jan-Markus Schwindt has presented an impressive argument against the
many-world interpretation of quantum mechanics.
The argument he presents is not new, but, in my
15 matches
Mail list logo
