Hi Bruno Marchal
Heraclitus' point was that in this contingent world, nothing
remains the same.
As I understand it, the naturalist fallacy is to judge that something
is good (in an ethical sense) because it is natural. Heraclitus makes
no such judgment.
I think H meant not the same river
Hi Craig Weinberg
The dualisms will work as fictions as long as you don't take
them too seriously.
But keep in mind:
IMHO all of those dualist positions are not logically valid.
Instead, they are phoney attempts to get around the unresolveable
issue that mind and body are completely
Roger says that mind and body are completely contrary substances
Richard replies what is dualism if not that?
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 6:43 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
The dualisms will work as fictions as long as you don't take
them too seriously.
But keep
ALSO,
1p --- now
3p -- then
Hi Bruno Marchal
3-view is descriptive truth, 1-view truth is truth by acquaintance.
Descriptive truth is similar to your knowing about Bertrand Russell.
Or to know that in principle 1+1 =2.
Truth by acquaintance is that you have met Bertrand Russell.
Or you
Hi Bruno Marchal
Man's soul, being a monad, includes the physical man, as
the physical man must remain associated to its monad.
But man-and-his-monad is not an actor, it is a puppet of the
supreme monad.
So there is but one actor, the Supreme monad.
Which is why we give thanks before a
Hi Bruno Marchal
IMHO arithmetic, unlike theory, does not make predictions
in the real world, so it has not contingency about it,
its truths are necessary, unchangeable. and always true.
That disqualifies arithmetic as a theory, which is man-made
(invented) and therefore contingent.
Theories
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Man's soul, being a monad, includes the physical man, as
the physical man must remain associated to its monad.
But man-and-his-monad is not an actor, it is a puppet of the
supreme monad.
You seem to be
Hi Bruno Marchal
OK, you say propositions might have a contradiction but you might not
yet have found the contradictions. That's a profound point.
In other words, one can't ever be sure if a proposition is
necessarily true, because, as Woody Allen says, forever
is a long time. And the variety
Hi Bruno Marchal
Is sigma_6 truth truth with only a 6 sigma possibility of error ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Hi Bruno Marchal
Isn't strong AI just an assumption ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-04, 09:43:16
Hi Stephen,
I wouldn't be too hard on Russell, at least as far as logic goes.
He had no way of knowing of Godel's proof. And Whitehead had
joined him in the principia project. Certainly two of the brightest
minds that ever lived.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a
On Monday, November 5, 2012 6:45:50 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
The dualisms will work as fictions as long as you don't take
them too seriously.
But keep in mind:
IMHO all of those dualist positions are not logically valid.
Instead, they are phoney attempts to
Hi Craig Weinberg
What they say about economists is also
appropriate to say about philosophers:
If all of the philosophers in the world were laid
end to end, they'd never come to a conclusion.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end.
Hi Hal Ruhl
i) Is OK, except Cs isn't distributed, it's beyond spacetime, and so it's just
there.
ii) Is misleading, because an entity cannot move or do as it desires
without some degree of free will. If no free will, they're robots.
If so, then who designed those robots and controls them
Hi Stephen P. King
Science is based on and produces facts.
I don't think you would want to call these facts opinions
unless they referred to global warming.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the
Hi Stephen P. King
Do you know of any comp outputs that we could
examine ? I myself worship data.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver:
I don't know that I'm a philosopher, but it seems to me that I have come to
a conclusion.
Craig
On Monday, November 5, 2012 8:13:38 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
What they say about economists is also
appropriate to say about philosophers:
If all of the philosophers in
Hi Stephen P. King
Depending on the existence of others is fine but incomplete.
A flood does not depend on the existence of others,
it's just contingent on too much rain. And not enough time
passed by for the flood to drain down. Come back in a
month and the flood's gone. So time is important,
On 11/5/2012 7:43 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
OK, you say propositions might have a contradiction but you might not
yet have found the contradictions. That's a profound point.
In other words, one can't ever be sure if a proposition is
necessarily true, because, as Woody Allen says,
On 11/5/2012 7:58 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen,
I wouldn't be too hard on Russell, at least as far as logic goes.
He had no way of knowing of Godel's proof. And Whitehead had
joined him in the principia project. Certainly two of the brightest
minds that ever lived.
Roger Clough,
Hi Stephen P. King
A truth exists dependent only on the One, who
creates all truth. But not on other minds:
E=mc^2 before man arrived, from the very getgo (and before),
and will remain after man.
Truth is foreign to us.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time,
On 11/5/2012 8:50 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Science is based on and produces facts.
I don't think you would want to call these facts opinions
unless they referred to global warming.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end.
On 11/5/2012 8:53 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Do you know of any comp outputs that we could
examine ? I myself worship data.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
Hi Roger,
Ask Bruno. I think that he has
On 11/5/2012 9:00 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Depending on the existence of others is fine but incomplete.
A flood does not depend on the existence of others,
it's just contingent on too much rain.
And the in/ability of the boundary to contain the addition of water...
On 11/5/2012 9:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I don't know that I'm a philosopher, but it seems to me that I have
come to a conclusion.
Craig
On Monday, November 5, 2012 8:13:38 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
What they say about economists is also
appropriate to say
Hi Stephen P. King
No, the 3p view is what is there then, or there-then.
Anything objective, such as some algorithm,
could be spoke of as within the 3p.
The 1p view is subjective (here, now or here-now).
Thus the buddhists, yogis and mystics advise
us to be here now. Buddhists I think call
Hi Craig Weinberg
I must be a philosopher then, for everything seems to be
a work in progress, if not immediately then afterwards.
But I am for the truth and sometimes, temporarily, seem
to have found it.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the
Hi Stephen P. King
That might be what I think Bruno referred to as 6 sigma truth,
namely truth that has a probability within std dev of 6 sigma of being true.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the
Hi Stephen P. King
Hmmm. I suppose there might be a multiple persons
understanding, but I am having enough problems right
now with one person up against the horrors of
Nietzsche's ghost.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody
Hi Stephen P. King
But the course of true love never did run smooth :-)
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time:
Hi meekerdb
The dilemma is that 1p is subjective and hence solipsistic, but when spoken
about it is
objective (3p, 2p; he, or you).
And as far as dualisms go, the only important one is subjective/objective.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But you know in davance that whatever happen, you will live only one
thing.
John Clark knows with certainty that John Clark will see Washington, and
John Clark knows with certainty that John Clark will see Moscow, and John
Clark knows
On 11/5/2012 9:03 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Sirius was there before Paul was born.
That position is called realism.
Hi Roger,
What makes you so sure? Realism assumes infallibility!
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On 11/5/2012 9:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
A truth exists dependent only on the One, who
creates all truth.
That is acceptable only if we allow it to have an infinite regress.
I like infinite regress but we cannot have pathological regress (such as
free lunches and
Hi Richard Ruquist
Engineering advantages ? A decade before the Wright brothers
flew their airplane, people would have said, You're going to do WHAT ?
Many if not all innovations like that seem at present to be crazy
or impossible.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is
Hi Richard Ruquist
Indeed, dualism is -- has to be-- science fiction.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time:
On 11/5/2012 9:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
No, the 3p view is what is there then, or there-then.
Anything objective, such as some algorithm,
could be spoke of as within the 3p.
Dear ROger,
'Where' and 'when' are meaningless unless specified. This renders
3p empty
Hi Richard Ruquist
There is not really any problem between free will and
pre-determinism as long as the men did what they wanted to do.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
On 11/5/2012 9:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Hmmm. I suppose there might be a multiple persons
understanding, but I am having enough problems right
now with one person up against the horrors of
Nietzsche's ghost.
Hi,
It helps to recall that he died of some form of
Hi Stephen P. King
1) I don't understand your application of infinite regress
to the One. The One is something like an intellectual white hole
from which all comes, to invent a description.
2) As far as E = mc^2 goes, yes, theory can change,
but the underlying phenomena do not.
Roger
On 11/5/2012 10:11 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi meekerdb
The dilemma is that 1p is subjective and hence solipsistic, but when spoken
about it is
objective (3p, 2p; he, or you).
And as far as dualisms go, the only important one is subjective/objective.
Hi Roger,
Think of a 3p as a
Hi Stephen P. King
Infallibility isn't involved. The typical textbook
explanation for realism is, if a tree falls in a
forest and nobody is there to hear it, would it
make a sound?
A realist (such as me) would say yes.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long
Can the work really be said to be progressing if no conclusions are ever
found? I agree that there seems to always be newer and greater
understandings to be discovered, but in between those moments of discovery
there can be thousands of years of relatively fixed ideas.
On Monday, November 5,
Hi Stephen P. King
You could see it that way, but I only meant that 1p is subjective
(as I see or know it (here,now)) while 3p is objective (as they
see or know whatever, whenever).
Which raises Wittgenstein's question, Can there be a
private language ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
Hi Stephen P. King
Good. That is another way to define objective (public).
Whereas 1p is personal and always private.
If 1p is communicated, it becomes 3p.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the
On 11/5/2012 10:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
1) I don't understand your application of infinite regress
to the One. The One is something like an intellectual white hole
from which all comes, to invent a description.
Hi Roger,
Let us think a bit about this. Does anything exist that could act
On 11/5/2012 10:35 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Infallibility isn't involved. The typical textbook
explanation for realism is, if a tree falls in a
forest and nobody is there to hear it, would it
make a sound?
A realist (such as me) would say yes.
The logician in me would say
On 11/5/2012 10:40 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
You could see it that way, but I only meant that 1p is subjective
(as I see or know it (here,now)) while 3p is objective (as they
see or know whatever, whenever).
Hi Roger,
OK, but isn't the objectivity of 3p exactly what many
On 11/5/2012 10:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Good. That is another way to define objective (public).
Whereas 1p is personal and always private.
If 1p is communicated, it becomes 3p.
Hi,
It is only 3p is that communication can be confirmed or 'witnessed'
by a third
On 04 Nov 2012, at 17:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/4/2012 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Nov 2012, at 13:06, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/3/2012 6:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear Bruno,
No, that cannot be the case since statements do not even
exist if the framework or
On 11/5/2012 11:18 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/5/2012 10:40 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
You could see it that way, but I only meant that 1p is subjective
(as I see or know it (here,now)) while 3p is objective (as they
see or know whatever, whenever).
Hi Roger,
OK,
On 11/5/2012 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I am using the possibility of a claim to make my argument, not
any actual instance of a claim. There is a difference. In comp there
are claims that such and such know or believe or bet. I am trying to
widen our thinking of how the
On 11/5/2012 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What is the possible value of a statement that we can make no
claims about?
We can make claim about them, but we don't need to do that for them
being true or false.
Who are the we that you refer to?
The universal numbers, or better the
On 04 Nov 2012, at 18:58, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
As in the movie the Prestige, would you step into the
duplicating machine knowing that one of your duplicates would
survive and one would drown?
Absolutely not!
On 11/5/2012 10:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Nov 2012, at 18:58, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
mailto:stath...@gmail.com wrote:
As in the movie the Prestige, would you step into the
duplicating
machine
On 11/5/2012 11:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Look at AUDA where all pronouns, for each points of view, are defined
mathematically. But most people does not need that to get this for
understanding the first indeterminacy notion. Avoiding the use of
pronouns there would conflate even more easily
Hi Stephen P. King
I believe that truth is independent of mind,
but we poor beggars cannot be sure of how
to state what that criterion is.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content
Hi,
Let me throw something into the conversation. Craig may have linked
this previously, but it needs closed inspection IMHO. Attention John Clark!
Debunking people's belief in free will takes the intention out of their
movements
Undermining a person's belief in free will alters the
On 11/5/2012 12:48 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
I believe that truth is independent of mind,
but we poor beggars cannot be sure of how
to state what that criterion is.
Hi Roger,
If truth is independent of the mind, how is it that the mind can
apprehend truth?
--
Onward!
Hi Stephen P. King
Plato in the end confessed that the best he
could offer was a likely story. I see no reason
to doubt his authority. Nor of the Bible,
for that matter.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
-
Hi Stephen P. King
I have no problem with that, although
I do think that there are some eternal truths
external to those minds.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen
Hi Stephen P. King
In the end, we must accept a truth, so in the end,
all truth is pragmatic. We must cast our own vote.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen
On 11/5/2012 12:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/5/2012 12:48 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
I believe that truth is independent of mind,
but we poor beggars cannot be sure of how
to state what that criterion is.
Hi Roger,
If truth is independent of the mind, how is it
Hi Stephen P. King
A mind is the medium through which a self with an unchanging identity
or soul actively senses, thinks, knows, can choose, imagine, create, and
perceive, subjectively, all on its own, to whatever extent that is possible.
Thus mind is the same as life. And not the organs of
On 11/5/2012 1:14 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Plato in the end confessed that the best he
could offer was a likely story. I see no reason
to doubt his authority. Nor of the Bible,
for that matter.
Dear Roger,
This tells me that you are OK with arguments from authority. This
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Again the same main 1-3 confusion.
I see nothing I can be confused about because the only point of view I can
see is my own first person one, what your second or his third person point
of view may be is pure speculation on
On 11/5/2012 1:17 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
I have no problem with that, although
I do think that there are some eternal truths
external to those minds.
Dear Roger,
OK, but what allows those 'external truths to be knowable? Maybe
they are unknowable and if so what
Hi Stephen P. King
Hmm, it's a fine point, but communicability implies symbols.
I believe that there were numbers before there were symbols for them.
There have to be symbols if they are used to think with,
but IMHO they were there before that in order for creation to
happen systematically,
On 11/5/2012 1:19 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
In the end, we must accept a truth, so in the end,
all truth is pragmatic. We must cast our own vote.
Dear Roger,
Are you familiar with Kenneth Arrow's impossibility theorem
On 05 Nov 2012, at 04:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/4/2012 11:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
No one has ever pretend it is paradoxical or contradictory about
that. But with the definition of 1p, it shows that something is
indeterminate.
It shows that the referent of you is uncertain -
yes.
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
The finding implies that free will is illusory.
Free will is not illusionary. A illusion is a perfectly respectable
subjective phenomena, but free will is not respectable, free will is just
gibberish.
John K Clark
--
You
Hi Stephen P. King
Hmmm. Spacetime is xyzt and so extended,
1p is inextended and so not part of that.
Thus, contrary to you and Berkeley,
1p and the physical universe do not need
each other. xyzt does fine on its own.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time,
Hi meekerdb
Love is a qualia and science cannot touch qualia.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-03, 21:28:12
On 11/5/2012 1:25 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/5/2012 12:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/5/2012 12:48 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
I believe that truth is independent of mind,
but we poor beggars cannot be sure of how
to state what that criterion is.
Hi Roger,
If truth is
On 11/5/2012 1:33 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
A mind is the medium through which a self with an unchanging identity
or soul actively senses, thinks, knows, can choose, imagine, create, and
perceive, subjectively, all on its own, to whatever extent that is possible.
Thus mind is the same as life.
On 05.11.2012 16:21 Roger Clough said the following:
Hi Richard Ruquist
Engineering advantages ? A decade before the Wright brothers flew
their airplane, people would have said, You're going to do WHAT ?
I guess this is a very good example, as the Wright brothers have just
done it. I am not
Hi Stephen P. King
Thanks for supporting the majesty of the One,
but I think the One, like God, needs a theodicy.
They both cause everything that happens, but for some
reason, all of the results down here are not perfect (are contingent).
I don't know why that happens, but I look all around
Hi Stephen P. King
A tape recorder could prove your theory wrong.
Berkeley finally gave in and said that realism
was acceptable because God could see or hear it.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving
On 04.11.2012 22:03 meekerdb said the following:
On 11/4/2012 1:18 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 04.11.2012 00:47 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
: Is there something that I could know to be the case, and
which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of
some scientific
Hi Stephen P. King
Yes, I had forgotten about many 1p.
And your dismissal of the possibility of a private language
is exactly what Witgenstein concluded.
Great minds must think alike.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody
Hi Stephen P. King
No, they don't all have to had witnessed it, they can simply
be told about it. In court that is called hearsay.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
Hi Stephen P. King
There you go again. That's the same question that einstein raised,
but in a positive format. He wondered why and how the universe was
so conducive to reason and methematics.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end.
Hi Stephen P. King
I don't think there's a better standard of truth.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time:
Hi Stephen P. King
Simple. All truths can probably only be known by the One who
it seems generated them (not sure).
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P.
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
I have heard it said that every year a certain mathematics
society gets together to celebrate the fact that not one of
their papers has proven to be useful.
Pragmatists on the other hand believe that only the useful is true.
Take your pick.
Roger Clough,
Hi Stephen P. King
Thanks for the heads up. We ask that question every four
years in the USA-- namely should the popular vote or should
the votes from the individual states (the electoral vote) decide
who becomes president ?
In the first Bush election, Gore won the popular vote but Bush
at
Hi Stephen P. King
I overlooked the most important attribute IMHO of mind, that being intelligence.
And indeed I may often seem to have a private language of terms,
although I try to use them as straight-forwardly as I can.
Those attributes to my mind are obtained but what mind enables
us to
Tribal warfare and the nature of man
Politics is tribal warfare. It's ancient hatred between
folks who don't even speak the same language.
There's no remedy. Tribes have brought safety to man
and so continue to this day. Tribes are anthropological.
We join the various tribes unknowingly
On 11/5/2012 12:51 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 11/5/2012 1:19 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
In the end, we must accept a truth, so in the end,
all truth is pragmatic. We must cast our own vote.
Dear Roger,
Are you familiar with Kenneth Arrow's impossibility theorem
dear Hal and Stephen,
I wanted to complete my response to both of you when at the point below a
blip in the juice blanked out my internet-connection and kidnapped the text
I had to that point.
I don't complete it right away, read first whatever comes in - to
facilitate a more comprehensive post.
On 11/5/2012 1:32 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 04.11.2012 22:03 meekerdb said the following:
On 11/4/2012 1:18 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 04.11.2012 00:47 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
: Is there something that I could know to be the case, and
which is not expressed by a
On Monday, November 5, 2012 1:56:53 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 Stephen P. King step...@charter.net javascript:wrote:
The finding implies that free will is illusory.
Free will is not illusionary. A illusion is a perfectly respectable
subjective phenomena, but free
On 05.11.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following:
On 11/5/2012 1:32 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 04.11.2012 22:03 meekerdb said the following:
On 11/4/2012 1:18 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 04.11.2012 00:47 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
: Is there something that I could know to be
Dear Russell,
I have my doubts about causality as a *complete* term: our 'systems', cf:
ecosystem etc. include the up-to-date inventory of knowables as in our
existing MODEL of the world - which grows over the millennia
stepwise. (The 'cause' of the lightning is no more the ire of Zeus).
Hi John:
See my 11/4/12 @ 4:43PM post on life re proposal ii - freewill precluded.
Hal Ruhl
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 1:57 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re:
On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 12:25:12 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 , meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript: wrote:
John Clark should get a kick out of this:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/talks/
In computer science, we deal all the time with processes that are
On 11/5/2012 8:13 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Even with the Theaetetus' definition of truth, which I find to be highly original
and amazingly ingenious, we are still left without an explanation as to how the
accidental coincidence of a Platonic Truth and an actual fact of the world occurs.
On 11/5/2012 2:30 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
A tape recorder could prove your theory wrong.
A tape recorder is an example of an observer of sounds, so no, my
theory stands.
Berkeley finally gave in and said that realism
was acceptable because God could see or hear it.
On 11/5/2012 2:36 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
No, they don't all have to had witnessed it, they can simply
be told about it. In court that is called hearsay.
You are still thinking that my observers are only human...
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
Forever
On 11/5/2012 2:46 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
I have heard it said that every year a certain mathematics
society gets together to celebrate the fact that not one of
their papers has proven to be useful.
Pragmatists on the other hand believe that only the useful is true.
Take
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
