On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:49:37 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/5/2012 10:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:25:02 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
But you couldn't realise you felt
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:52:11 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/5/2012 10:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:32:21 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
I find that the least plausible
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You interpret the existence
spontaneous neural activity as meaning that something magical like
this happens, but it doesn't mean that at all.
Spontaneous is just that, spontaneous. It isn't magical. It is quite
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
No, it doesn't mean that at all. If the billion people interact so as
to mimic the behaviour of the neurons in a brain, resulting in the
ability to (for example) converse in natural language, then the idea
is that the
Since Leibniz's metaphysics is perfectly logical, any logical
proposition is true of his metaphysics.
Two Leibnizian proofs that God has the power of self-reference
1. All monads with intellect can presumably have self-reference.
2. God is also a monad with intellect, being the supreme monad.
Hi Stephen P. King
The man, in invoking the concept of empirical proofs, is still bewitched by
materialism.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/6/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
All mental activity is out of the blue,
meaning inextended, outside of spacetime.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/6/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
Hi Craig Weinberg
I don't think you can separate a man's brain from his mind or vice versa,
since the mind is the brain's monad and monads cannot be created or destroyed.
At least according to Leibniz.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/6/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Put it differently, it is what the variable used in the theory
represent. ExP(x) means that there is some number verifying P.
But this makes no sense if you only consider the natural numbers. The just
contain 123456789 + * and =. There is no notion of veryifying or
I must have missed something. What does the
thinking of men have to do with evolution ?
The evolution of plantlife ,at least, occurred before men were here.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/6/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could
The Roman Catholic Church believes that god has intention but not
intelligence in agreement with Arithemetical Truth and neo-Platonism
concept that self-reference is not possible for god.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Since Leibniz's metaphysics is
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Sep 2012, at 21:47, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes, we simulated some systems, but they couldn't perform the
same function.
A pump does the function of an heart.
No. A pump just pumps blood. The heart also performs endocrine
functions, it
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
IMHO Intelligence, as I see it, is the ability to make choices autonomously
(one's own choices).
One could, if so desired, lie about something. Or create something
nonscientific (a watercolor)
Robot choices made by software or hardware are not autonomous because
If the digital substitution is at the density of 10^90 pixels per
cubic centimeter,
as found in string theory, then digital substitution is essentially analog.
Richard
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:31 AM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Sep 2012, at
Dear Richard,
Would it be a heresy to consider that God could have partial but
not complete self-reference?
On 9/6/2012 7:24 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
The Roman Catholic Church believes that god has intention but not
intelligence in agreement with Arithemetical Truth and neo-Platonism
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
If the prime numbers were there from the beginning, before man,
then I think they were mind-created (platonic) not brain-created (human
creations).
Are the prime numbers an invention by man or one of man's discoveries ?
I believe that the prime numbers are not a human
Dear Roger,
Could the mere possibility of being a number (without the
specificity of which one) be considered to be there from the beginning?
On 9/6/2012 7:47 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
If the prime numbers were there from the beginning, before man,
then I think they
Richard you are dishonest, especially if you are a catholic. I have posted
this statement from Aquinas' Summa
(like a bible to the catholic faith) to you previously. God is intelligence
itself:
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Compendium.htm#31
CHAPTER 31
IDENTITY BETWEEN GOD AND HIS INTELLIGENCE
Hi Stephen P. King
Yes, of course, but I wanted a more obvious, dramatic example.
The philosophy of mathematics says something like the numbers
belong to a static or eternal world, change itself is a property of geometry.
Numbers and geometry thus belong to the platonic world,
which is
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
I must have missed something. What does the
thinking of men have to do with evolution ?
The evolution of plantlife ,at least, occurred before men were here.
The question is whether philosophical zombies are possible or
Roger,
The Church has gone beyond Acquinas. It has a mechanism for evolving.
Fundamentalist churches and temples and mosques have no such mechanism.
Do not call me dishonest. I am still waiting for a link to where
Leibniz himself says there is a supreme monad. That concept does not
appear in his
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
A fun question. I assume that zombies are the dead brought back
to life somehow. That monads cannot be created or destroyed
Is a peculiar feature of Leibniz's metaphysics that would enable the
resurrection of zombies.
Leibniz believed that even when we die, our monad will
Hi Richard Ruquist
Aquinas, being the truth, cannot be superceded.
I don't know anything about catholic fundamentalist churches,
but am suspicious that that's just a fantasy.
The supreme monad is a critical feature without
which we would remain blind and paralyzed.
You need to think through
Roger,
Your insults are unnecessary.
I do not depend on you.
I just think you are mostly wrong
and unable to back up what you claim to be true,
even about Leibniz.
So you think Acquinas is the truth and therefore god.
Sobeit.
Richard
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Roger Clough
All numbers can be defined in terms of sets. The question becomes this:
do sets have ontological primacy relative to mankind or are sets invented
or created by mankind?
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Yes, of course, but I wanted a
On 9/6/2012 11:09 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that sets and
membership cannot be defined in terms of a more primary mathematical
concept. Functions can be defined in terms of this primitive called
sets. Numbers are sets; natural numbers are
Sure you can have sets without numbers.
The popular set theory's development known as ZFC is not based on numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory
Numbers are defined in terms of sets. What that means is that all numbers
are sets but not all sets are numbers.
I
Dear Roger,
Why is it that people persist in even suggesting that numbers are
created by man? Why the anthropocentric bias? Pink Ponies might have
actually crated them, or Polka-dotted Unicorns! The idea is just silly!
The point is that properties do not occur at the whim of any one
On 9/5/2012 11:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Intention is not magic and doesn't need hypothetical permission to exist. If your words
are random ricochets of quantum radioactive decay or thermodynamic anomalies, then they
are meaningless noise. You can't account for them because any accounting
I couldn't agree more.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Dear Roger,
Why is it that people persist in even suggesting that numbers are
created by man? Why the anthropocentric bias? Pink Ponies might have
actually crated them, or Polka-dotted
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Las Vegas has no function either.
Yes it does, Las Vegas functions to make money and give people pleasure,
the pyramids gave nobody pleasure at the time they were built except
perhaps for the Pharaoh; and they failed
Hi Roger,
I know, Roger. I was addressing John Clark, who confirmed my feeling
that atheists are the number one defender of the Christian's
conception of God. Your's is obviously closer to Plato and the general
machine's theology.
It is bit sad you don't listen to what the machines
On 05 Sep 2012, at 18:15, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Perhaps wrongly, I think of the world of monads as the virtual world.
Virtual means simulated by a computer, in computer science.
It has another meaning in physics, which I have never make complete
sense of, as it is unclear
(reposting from my blog http://s33light.org/post/31001294447)
If I’m right, then the slogan “information wants to be free” is not just an
intuition about social policy, but rather an insight into the ontological
roots of information itself. To be more precise, it isn’t that information
wants
On 05 Sep 2012, at 08:38, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Notice that both the duplication and the teleportation, as
discussed,
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal
turing
machine can compute everything that is intuitively computable, has near
universal acceptance among computer
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:03:33 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
Las Vegas has no function either.
Yes it does, Las Vegas functions to make money and give people pleasure,
the pyramids gave nobody pleasure at
On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:27, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 03:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Taking another look at Sane2004. This isn't so much as a challenge
to Bruno, just sharing my notes of why I disagree.
On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:34, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
God also created time, and anyway eternity is timeless,
not sure if spacless.
I can accept this as a rough sum up of some theory (= hypothesis; +
consequences), not as an explanation per se. As an explanation, it is
On 05 Sep 2012, at 18:12, Roger Clough wrote:
I don't think that life or mind or intelligence
can be teleported. Especially since nobody knows what
they are.
I also don't believe that you can download
the contents of somebody's brain.
This is just restating that you don't believe in comp.
On 05 Sep 2012, at 19:24, Roger Clough wrote:
Leibniz, my mentor, believed that reality (being mental)
consists of an infinite collection of (inextended)
mathematical points called monads.
These can never be created or destroyed.
Like the numbers. Note this, the numbers 1, 2, 3 in front of
On 9/6/2012 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Consciousness does not arise. It is not in space, nor in time. Its local content,
obtained by differentiation, internally can refer to time and space,
Even if it is not *in* spacetime, my consciousness seems to depend on some particular
localized
A too much powerful God leads to inconsistency.
What if reality does not always obey the laws of logic? What if reality is
sometimes inconsistent?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
On 05 Sep 2012, at 20:28, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 9:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Sep 2012, at 17:48, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote:
Strangely you agree
for the 1-p viewpoint. But given that's what
On 05 Sep 2012, at 20:34, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 9:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The neoplatonist conception of God does not allow It to ask such a
question.
Nor does Arithmetical Truth.
God has no self-reference power at all, as this would make it
inconsistent.
Dear Bruno,
On 9/6/2012 11:52 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
A too much powerful God leads to inconsistency.
What if reality does not always obey the laws of logic? What if reality is sometimes
inconsistent?
This is a confusion of levels. Logic is rules about truth preservation in declarative
On 05 Sep 2012, at 21:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/5/2012 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Put in another way: there is no ontological hardware. The hardware
and wetware are emergent on the digital basic ontology (which can
be described by numbers or combinators as they describe the same
On 05 Sep 2012, at 22:24, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 11:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:01, Russell Standish wrote:
For certain choices of this or that, the ultimate reality is
actually unknowable. For instance, the choice of a Turing complete
basis means that
On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote:
Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi) can't be
computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain, this doesn't
entangle it with other brains since computation is classical.
The UD emulates all quantum computer, as they do
Stathis wrote (to Craig):
*But you believe that the neurochemicals do things contrary to what
chemists would predict, for example an ion channel opening or closing
without any cause such as a change in transmembrane potential or
ligand concentration. We've talked about this before and it just
In this post the editing differences are washed away, the statements melt
together with the responses to them.
I was careful to use different font-distinctions and it all came out here
like a mud. I think that is unfair.
John Mikes
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
On 9/6/2012 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 18:15, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Perhaps wrongly, I think of the world of monads as the virtual world.
Virtual means simulated by a computer, in computer science.
It has another meaning in physics, which I have never
On 9/5/2012 11:37 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:11:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
Exactly. There may a problem with this, but its seems
that if mind is everywhere (is inextended, so space is irrelevant),
I am always part of the
On 9/6/2012 4:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/6/2012 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 18:15, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Perhaps wrongly, I think of the world of monads as the virtual world.
Virtual means simulated by a computer, in computer science.
It has
On 9/5/2012 12:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Roger,
On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:23, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
No, the supreme Monad can see everything even
though the monads have no windows.
Also the closeness to God issue depends
on your clarity of vision and feeling. And perhaps
On 9/5/2012 12:57 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
You raise an interesting point If all of the monads had to be
existing at the beginning of the universe, what if I build
a new computer ?
Dear Roger,
The point is that the physical stuff is NOT ontologically
primitive. It
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:37:38 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 11:50 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 6:38:07 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
No, the stuff in our skulls is alive, has intelligence, and a 1p.
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:31:25 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 11:37 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:11:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
Exactly. There may a problem with this, but its seems
that if mind is
On 9/6/2012 1:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
(reposting from my blog http://s33light.org/post/31001294447)
If I’m right, then the slogan “information wants to be free” is not
just an intuition about social policy, but rather an insight into the
ontological roots of information itself. To be
On 9/6/2012 7:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:37:38 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 11:50 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 6:38:07 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
No, the stuff in our
On 9/6/2012 1:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Sep 2012, at 08:38, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
snip
What is most interesting
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:47 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote:
It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal
turing
machine can compute
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:07 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Stathis wrote (to Craig):
But you believe that the neurochemicals do things contrary to what
chemists would predict, for example an ion channel opening or closing
without any cause such as a change in transmembrane potential
On 9/6/2012 8:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:31:25 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 11:37 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:11:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
Exactly. There may a
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
A fun question. I assume that zombies are the dead brought back
to life somehow. That monads cannot be created or destroyed
Is a peculiar feature of Leibniz's metaphysics that would enable the
65 matches
Mail list logo
