David, Tom, Stephen, I keep your posts and I will comment them the week after the next one. I have also to finish a post for Stephen Paul King about bisimulation and identity. I'm out of my office the whole next week. I hope my mail-box will survive :)
Best Regards, Bruno Le 15-juin-07, à 03:16, David Nyman a écrit : > The 'substrate' to which I refer is not matter or anything else in > particular, but a logical-semantic 'substrate' from which 'mind' or > 'matter' could emerge. On this basis, 'sense-action' (i.e. two > differentiated 'entities' primitively 'sensing' each other in order to > 'interact') is a logical, or at least semantically coherent, > requirement. For example, if you want to use a particle-force > analogy, then the 'force' would be the medium of exchange of sense- > action - i.e. relationship. In Kant's ontology, his windowless monads > had no such means of exchange (the 'void' prevented it) and > consequently divine intervention had to do the 'trick'. I'm hoping > that Bruno will help me with the appropriate analogy for AR+COMP. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
