Hi,
2011/10/5 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 4, 8:46 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/4/2011 5:15 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 4, 2:59 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This goes by the name causal completeness; the idea that the 3-p
observable
On Oct 5, 12:23 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/4/2011 8:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 4, 8:46 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/4/2011 5:15 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 4, 2:59 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
This goes by the name causal
On Oct 5, 12:27 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
According to Craig, the 1-p
influence (which is equivalent to an immaterial soul) is ubiquitous in
living things, and possibly in other things as well.
But he doesn't say what effect is has. It could be anything and hence could
On Oct 5, 2:54 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
2011/10/5 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
Consciousness happens. Physics has nothing to say about what the
content of any particular brain's thoughts should be. If give you a
book about Marxism then you will have
2011/10/5 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 5, 2:54 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
2011/10/5 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
Consciousness happens. Physics has nothing to say about what the
content of any particular brain's thoughts should be. If
On 04 Oct 2011, at 02:51, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Oct 3, 11:16 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't think that there are any arithmetical beings.
In which theory?
In reality.
That type of assertion is equivalent with because God say so.
Reality is what we try to figure
meekerdb wrote:
On 10/4/2011 1:44 PM, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
But then one 3-thing remains uncomputable, and undefined,
namely the very foundation of computations. We can define
computations in
terms of numbers relations, and we can define number
On Oct 5, 10:15 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
No they are not saying that. They are saying that a model of the brain fed
with the same inputs as a real brain will act as the real brain... if it was
not the case, the model would be wrong so you could not label it as a model
of
2011/10/5 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 5, 10:15 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
No they are not saying that. They are saying that a model of the brain
fed
with the same inputs as a real brain will act as the real brain... if it
was
not the case, the model
On Oct 5, 11:54 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/10/5 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Oct 5, 10:15 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
No they are not saying that. They are saying that a model of the brain
fed
with the same inputs as a real brain
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
In fact, Craig himself
denies that his theory would manifest as violation of physical law,
and is therefore inconsistent.
There is no inconsistency. You're just not understanding what I'm
saying because you are only
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 5, 10:15 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
No they are not saying that. They are saying that a model of the brain fed
with the same inputs as a real brain will act as the real brain... if it was
not
On Oct 5, 6:40 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
In fact, Craig himself
denies that his theory would manifest as violation of physical law,
and is therefore inconsistent.
There is no
On Oct 5, 7:10 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 5, 10:15 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
No they are not saying that. They are saying that a model of the brain fed
with the
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you are right then there would be a violation of physical law in
the brain. You have said as much, then denied it. You have said that
neurons firing in the brain can't be just due to a chain of
biochemical events.
15 matches
Mail list logo
