On 3/10/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems that you are missing my point. I will better explain my
point about the whole control loop. Personal tastes and second
order feelings about the tastes are all on the *input* side of our
system of consciousness. But the input is not
On 3/10/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 7, 1:52 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/7/07, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why wouldn't the *whole* of such a Plenitude be truly superfluous to
any reality? According to Bruno's recursion theory
On 3/10/07, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i ENVY YOU, guys, to know so much about BHs to speak of a singularity.
I would not go further than according to what is said about them, they
may
wash off whatever got into and turn into - sort of - a singularity.
Galaxies, whatever, fall into
Le 10-mars-07, à 04:30, Tom Caylor a écrit :
Here a diagram would be useful. The reductionist tendency seems to be
to lump all of consciousness into the input interpretting box and
explain it in terms of smaller parts making up an autonomous
machine. Hence, now that it is all explained
Le 10-mars-07, à 04:59, Tom Caylor a écrit :
Modern science is
only in the left side of the brain of humanity.
Unlike greek science, if you look carefully.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because
Le 10-mars-07, à 09:58, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Most people in the world behave as if there were an ultimate morality,
even though logically they might know that there isn't.
Come on, come on, come on com,
I think this true even of those with religious beliefs:
Cher Quentin,
let me paraphrase (big):
so someone had an assumption: BH. OK, everybody has the right to fantasize.
Especially if it sounds helpful.Then
some mathematically loaded minds calculated within this assumption with
quantities taken from other assumptions (pardon me: quantizing within
John M:
Cher Quentin,
let me paraphrase (big):
so someone had an assumption: BH. OK, everybody has the right to fantasize.
Especially if it sounds helpful.
Well, the basic assumption was more broad than that: it was that general
relativity is a trustworthy theory of gravity. There's plenty
Dear Jesse,
thanks for the cool and objective words.
I take it back (not what I said: I mean the topic) further. Our edifice of
physical science
is a wonderful mental construct, balanced by applied math, all on quantities
fitting the reduced models of historical observations from the hand-ax on.
SP: ' ... it could take a long time to get there ... '
MP: But is that according to the time frame of the laughing devil who
threw me in there and who remains safely out of reach of
acceleration-induced time dilation, or my wailing ghost which/who's mind
and sensoria will be ever more
Tom, is it not a simple fact, surely, that *meaning*, for a creature
with the wherewithal to worry about it, is fundamentally the recognition
of relationships amongst the creatures and things perceived in the
world, including oneself, and relating these to oneself?
Regards
Mark Peaty
11 matches
Mail list logo
