Hi Kim,
Still interested?
I must say I was wrong. I cannot explain to you the functioning of a
computer without doing math. Orally, drawing on a black board, I would
have been able to explain a big part of it, and simultaneously hiding
the mathematics. But I realize now that even this
Bruno
Have you seen this:
V. Walsh, A theory of magnitude:common cortical metrics of time, spce
and quantity, trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 483 (2003)
This was a one reference in a paper on time I just read today( Time
and Causation http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0559
The Templeton Foundation gives sizeable grants to projects for
reconciling science and religion, and awards a yearly prize of two
million dollars to a philosopher or scientist whose work highlights
the spiritual dimension of scientific progress.
Go for it, Bruno! If Paul Davies can do it
Bruno, our posts just crossed each other.
I'm still here and listening and thinking hard.
We are busy, as you say, but listening and thinking about the
realities has to be part of that, so I ensure that I set aside time to
follow your reasoning.
I may translate part of the Brussels thesis
Kim Jones wrote:
The Templeton Foundation gives sizeable grants to projects for
reconciling science and religion, and awards a yearly prize of two
million dollars to a philosopher or scientist whose work highlights
the spiritual dimension of scientific progress.
Go for it, Bruno! If
Trans. Kim Jones (extract only)
1.1 Mechanist Philosophies
1.1.1 Different types of Mechanism
I distinguish the following mechanist hypotheses:
BEHAVIOURIST MECHANISM
Some machines can behave as thinking beings (living, conscious etc.)
(BEH-MEC)
STRONG MECHANISM
Some machines can think
This is pretty good. Is there any online source with a complete
version available?
Thanks.
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
Trans. Kim Jones (extract only)
1.1 Mechanist Philosophies
1.1.1 Different types of Mechanism
I distinguish the following
7 matches
Mail list logo
