So you are saying the special something which causes
consciousness and which functionalism has ignored
is the electric field around the neuron/astrocyte.
But electric fields were well understood even a
hundred years ago, weren't they? Why couldn't
a neuron be simulated by something like a
Brent Meeker writes (quoting SP):
There are several differences between the axioms of ethics and aesthetics
on
the one hand and those of logic, mathematics and science on the other.
One is
that you can bet that any sentient species would arrive at exactly the
same rules
Colin,
I can understand that, for example, a computer simulation of a storm is not a
storm,
because only a storm is a storm and will get you wet. But perhaps
counterintuitively,
a model of a brain can be closer to the real thing than a model of a storm. We
don't
normally see inside a
Le 15-déc.-06, à 02:04, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Who says the Nazis are wrong when they assert they are good?
I was not saying that they were wrong. I was saying that they were bad.
Who says this? All self-referentially correct machine sufficnetly rich
to prove elementary theorems in
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
So you are saying the special something which causes
consciousness and which functionalism has ignored
is the electric field around the neuron/astrocyte.
But electric fields were well understood even a
hundred years ago, weren't they? Why couldn't
a neuron be
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes (quoting SP):
There are several differences between the axioms of ethics and aesthetics
on
the one hand and those of logic, mathematics and science on the other.
One is
that you can bet that any sentient species would arrive at
Brent said:
snip
Of course they describe things - they aren't the things themselves.
But the question is whether the description is complete. Is there
anything about EM fields that is not described by QED?
Absolutely HEAPS! Everything that they are made of and how the components
inteact to
Dear list:
this was the last post I received (I think I am subscribed)
Have I been (or the list?) terminated?
John Mikes
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 5:27 AM
Subject: Re: Natural Order Belief
Stathis wrote:
I can understand that, for example, a computer simulation of a storm is
not a storm, because only a storm is a storm and will get you wet. But
perhaps counterintuitively, a model of a brain can be closer to the real
thing than a model of a storm. We don't normally see inside a
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
Stathis wrote:
I can understand that, for example, a computer simulation of a storm is
not a storm, because only a storm is a storm and will get you wet. But
perhaps counterintuitively, a model of a brain can be closer to the real
thing than a model of a storm. We
Dear John,
This is ancient history judging from the post date. Just the same - I
saw a post from you some time ago with the single word in the subject
line unsubscribe. I'm not dreaming - I saw it. Did you lean on the
big, bright yellow unsubscribe button by mistake?
Kim Jones
On
So your theory is that the electromagnetic field has an ability to learn
which is not reflected in QED - it's some hitherto unknown aspect of the
field and it doesn't show up in the field violating Maxwell's equations
or
QED predictions? And further this aspect of the EM field is able to
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 15-déc.-06, à 02:04, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Who says the Nazis are wrong when they assert they are good?
I was not saying that they were wrong. I was saying that they were bad.
Who says this? All self-referentially correct machine sufficnetly rich
Sorry, John. I set your subscription to no email thinking you wanted to
unsubscribe. I've changed it back now. For future reference you can check your
subscription status at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/subscribe.
- Original Message -
From: Kim Jones
To:
14 matches
Mail list logo
