Lee,
It’s perhaps unfortunate that we are arguing about this because I think we basically agree on what Derek Parfit has called a reductionist theory of personal identity (in his 1984 book “Reasons and Persons”; apparently “reductionist” was not in wide use as a term of abuse back then). I like
Le 24-juin-06, à 07:19, Colin Hales a écrit :
Hi,
[ALL]
Lee, I seem to have miss-attributed the source of my guffaw that lead
to my
little outburst to Bruno. Apologies to all as appropriate... :-)
That's what I call a scientific attitude. Doing errors, discovering
them, admitting
Le 23-juin-06, à 07:29, George Levy a écrit :
In Bruno's calculus what are the invariances? (Comment on Tom Caylor's
post)
Logicians, traditionally, are interested in deduction invariant with
respect of the interpretation. A typical piece of logic is that: from
p q you can infer p. And
Le 23-juin-06, à 06:51, Lee Corbin a écrit :
Now the version of me who continues on Earth *would* be very
unhappy (though he would become used to it) if each second .
percent of him was taken away to hell forever. This is because
I must anticipate being in hell (just as you are saying).
Le 21-juin-06, à 11:19, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 10:29:30PM -0700, George Levy wrote:
In Bruno's calculus what are the invariances? (Comment on Tom
Caylor's post)
The main one relates to universal computation. For example, the coding
theorem states that
Dear Stephen,
We can go on and on about relations between states, numbers, UDs, or
whatever, but unless we have a consistent way to deal with the source
of
individuation and thus distinguishability, we are going nowhere...
The source of individuation could be personal memory I think.
I comment a Post by Stathis addressed to Lee and I end up with a question to Hal.
Le 24-juin-06, à 15:01, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
x-tad-biggerLee,/x-tad-bigger
x-tad-bigger /x-tad-bigger
x-tad-bigger It’s perhaps unfortunate that we are arguing about this because I think we basically
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 23-juin-06, 07:29, George Levy a crit :
In Bruno's calculus what are the invariances? (Comment on Tom Caylor's
post)
Logicians, traditionally, are interested in deduction invariant with
respect of the interpretation. A typical piece of
An interesting (if perhaps sideline) discovery on when the modern
human mind evolved:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19570907-29677,00.html
LONDON: Modern human behaviour such as body adornment, figurative thought and
probably complex language began at least 25,000 years
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 08:30:08PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
2) We are type, not token. There is no physical token. (with comp).
Parfit thinks we are token. I have not the Parfit under the hand, I
will give you the pages later. I don't think there are any mathematical
token either. It
I do apologise for my computer getting stuck in the past. I'm posting
this from Linux running under VMWare running under Windows XP. It
seems this arrangement leads to temporal paradox whenever the computer
hibernates...
Cheers
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 07:08:07AM +1000, Russell Standish wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Thank you for this wonderful post! Interleaving...
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: Only Existence is necessary?
Dear Stephen,
We can go
12 matches
Mail list logo
