At 22:25 15/01/04 -0500, Doug Porpora wrote:
There have been two main reductionist strategies to deal with mental
states, and they both -- to say the least -- have stalled. The two
strategies are:
1. Eliminative materialism
2. Identity theory
Well, that is the two *materialist* strategies.
At 17:13 14/01/04 +, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
Please correct me if I am wrong:
Bruno believes that information, for example mathematical concepts and
theorems, exist independently of their encoding in some physicsl systems
(arithmetic realism); in other words, that the number 4 esists
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 10:27:49AM +0800, David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
I agree with everything you say, but did you really think I was making a
point because Eugen happened to use hex?!
I've fallen behind on answering my email, so sorry if this is brief and a bit
out of context. This post is
Some thoughts on the MWI for your comments. I am sending this to a few
mailing lists with overlapping memberships, so you may have received this
twice or more. I apologise if this is the case and also for the very
imprecise language and gross simplifications and analogies that I am using
to make
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 10:25:06PM -0500, Doug Porpora wrote:
Okay, well here you have just asserted that human beings can be
defined as the sum of discrete quantum states and the like and that
thoughts are therefore not infinite.
You make it sound like a fringe statement, the reverse is in
Hello,
On Jan 15, 2004, at 7:25 PM, Doug Porpora wrote:
snip
Well, only if reductionism succeeds. If reductionism fails, then,
unlike universes, which, on my reading of Tegmark, are discrete and
countable, thoughts are not only infinite but uncountably infinite. In
that case, thoughts -- and
Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 10:14 13/01/04 +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
Some people do argue that there is no arithmetical property
independent of us because there is no thing on which they would
apply independentkly of us. What we would call their arithmetical
properties is simply a set of
Infinity has no limit. If (a big IF) there are an infinity of universes,
then anything that can happen, no matter how improbable, must happen, not
only once but an infinite number of times.
Either there are an infinity of universes or there are not - in either case
I wonder why?
I was thinking
I just noticed that today (or pehaps yesterday, depending on how you
figure it) is the 6th birthday of the everything-list, which was begun
by Wei Dai in January 1998. The list has remained remarkably active
and civil over that time, compared to other lists I've been on.
The initial message
Happy Birthday!
Hal Finney wrote:
I just noticed that today (or pehaps yesterday, depending on how you
figure it) is the 6th birthday of the everything-list, which was begun
by Wei Dai in January 1998. The list has remained remarkably active
and civil over that time, compared to other lists
On 17 January 2004 Doug Porpora wrote:
*quote*
Norman and Bruno: I myself am not defending a dualist position (body +
soul, mind, whatever). I am prepared to say the body is the only substance
that exists. That does not mean its behavior is explainable in terms of
physics alone.
Yes, I
Dear Stathis,
For an alternative approach to dualism see:
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/pratt95rational.html
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 12:40
12 matches
Mail list logo
