On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:25 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, and there are two of them and so there are 2 heres and 2 not
theres. So what ONE and only ONE thing does John Clark the
experimenter enter
Hi Craig Weinberg
By progressives I obviously meant those that act to change things.
Which means overthrowing the way the good, the beautiful and
the true are thought to be and commonly accepted as. Thus one
subverts morality, philosophy and religion, and aesthetics.
It's a form of social
On 12/15/2012 10:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Could Double Aspect theory apply to a computer ?
I don't think so, because in that theory mind and
brain are just different forms or aspects of some
hard-to-define stuff. I just can't see computer
hardware being another aspect of its
Hi Stephen P. King
As with Berkeleyism, Immaterialism denies the existence of matter.
Leibniz doesn't, so I'll stick with Leibniz, whose metaphysics
is a double aspect type or close to that and was taken up
by Kant, also a double-sperspective type. Modern neurophilosophy
is said to be
Hi Craig Weinberg
Yes, amoebas and T-cells. Anything that has life must have
intelligence and awareness, although it might be of limited extent.
Without life, it couldn't animate. Without awareness and inteligence
to understand that perception, it would not know where to go or
what to do.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns.
John Clark is happy to read that but is somewhat skeptical it is true.
I think it needs to put in the context of QM, which is what Bruno is
proposing to
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
Anything alive must have consciousness to some degree,
so consciousness always was-- at least to a limited extent.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
Hi Stephen P. King -
I believe with Kant that conciousness has structure (the categories)
or else we could not know anything. These categories are ontological,
not mental, and so are a priori.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end.
Hi Stephen P. King
Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 10:00:54 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
By progressives I obviously meant those that act to change things.
Which means overthrowing the way the good, the beautiful and
the true are thought to be and commonly accepted as.
Do you think that
On 12/15/2012 12:41 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
As with Berkeleyism, Immaterialism denies the existence of matter.
Leibniz doesn't, so I'll stick with Leibniz, whose metaphysics
is a double aspect type or close to that and was taken up
by Kant, also a double-sperspective type.
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:04:11 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal.
Conservative debate tactics are to *always* make it personal to avoid
talking about the issues respectfully. I have seen this time
On 12/15/2012 12:59 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King -
I believe with Kant that conciousness has structure (the categories)
or else we could not know anything. These categories are ontological,
not mental, and so are a priori.
Dear Roger,
This is where I think that Kant is wrong.
On 12/15/2012 1:04 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal.
Sadly, so it seems.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this
2012/12/15 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 12/15/2012 1:04 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal.
Sadly, so it seems.
I must side with Craig here... what is sad is your ways of debating here.
Quentin
On 12/15/2012 1:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 10:00:54 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
By progressives I obviously meant those that act to change things.
Which means overthrowing the way the good, the beautiful and
the true are thought
Hi meekerdb
How about Kierkegaard's dictum, Truth is subjective ?
I agree with him 100 %.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
On 12/15/2012 1:45 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
How about Kierkegaard's dictum, Truth is subjective ?
I agree with him 100 %.
I disagree 100% Truth is the agreement between many
subjectives. A single subjective cannot even know what truth is.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this
How about this:
Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them.
Sometimes one is right, sometimes the other, but
unfortunately it costs money (usually a fortune) to create a demo.
So liberals need to listen seriously to the conservatives.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Subjective probability depends on the amount of information, or lack of
it, the person involved has; and if Many Worlds is correct then all
probabilities are subjective. If you told me nothing about the machine and
just
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:41:08 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
As with Berkeleyism, Immaterialism denies the existence of matter.
Leibniz doesn't, so I'll stick with Leibniz, whose metaphysics
is a double aspect type or close to that and was taken up
by Kant,
2012/12/15 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 3:16 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Subjective probability depends on the amount of information, or lack of
it, the person involved has; and if Many Worlds is correct then all
probabilities are subjective. If
Solipsism teaches us that we might be able to know the truth
subjectively (as, for Christians, the Word) , but we cannot communicate
that correctly (in words, in beliefs) to others.
Thus, to a Christian at least, only a little child can know the truth.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
Hi Craig Weinberg
Ghandi didn't increase anybody's taxes,
which makes everything he did right.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver:
Hi Craig Weinberg
If you are a liberal, you cannot understand a conservative's motives.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:37:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 1:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 10:00:54 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
By progressives I obviously meant those that act to change things.
Which
Hi Craig Weinberg
Berkeley had to finally admit that matter is real,
and not an illusion, not because WE see it, but because God does.
But, to revert back to Leibniz, because God sees all things
from all the perspectives of the infinity of monads,
L's view is in the end identical to Berkeley's
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:41:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 1:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:04:11 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Liberals also always take anything resembling criticism as personal.
On 12/15/2012 1:51 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
How about this:
Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them.
Dear Roger,
No, All that is different between them is where their respective utopias
lie. Liberals yearn for a future utopia on Earth, conservatives pine
over their utopia in
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:07:55 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
Ghandi didn't increase anybody's taxes,
which makes everything he did right.
Sounds like a position Jesus would approve of.
Hi Stephen P. King
The a priori are simply assumptions made before
performing a deduction which would be impossible to do
without the assumptions. An example would be that arithmetic
is true.
If you can do without an a priori, you could be a celebrated
theorist, if even that word is the proper
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:29:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 1:51 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
How about this:
Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them.
Dear Roger,
No, All that is different between them is where their respective utopias
Hi Craig Weinberg
I beg to differ.
My hero, Calvin Coolidge, the arch conservative of all time, once said,
Don't just do something.Stand there.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:51:40 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
I beg to differ.
My hero, Calvin Coolidge, the arch conservative of all time, once said,
Don't just do something.Stand there.
That's great if you are already standing on top of a
Hi Stephen P. King
You agree with Peirce, then, that truth is what a consensus
will inevitably arrive at.
As politics shows, however, the public is divided into
liberals and conservatives, who in principle can never agree.
because one bases his judgment on a moral standpoint
(is it fair ?)
Hi Stephen P. King
OK.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-15, 14:29:50
Subject: Re: Moral evaluations of
On 12/15/2012 2:19 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
i Craig Weinberg
Berkeley had to finally admit that matter is real,
and not an illusion, not because WE see it, but because God does.
But, to revert back to Leibniz, because God sees all things
from all the perspectives of the infinity of monads,
L's
Hi Craig Weinberg
Liberals argue like women do, they will try to win by making
you feel guilty. This nearly always works.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig
On 12/15/2012 2:26 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:41:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 1:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:04:11 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Liberals also always
Hi Craig Weinberg
That's the old guilt argument. It's as old as Robin Hood
and is just as likely to stay with us as it works.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From:
On 12/15/2012 2:33 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:07:55 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
Ghandi didn't increase anybody's taxes,
which makes everything he did right.
Sounds like a position Jesus would approve of.
On 12/15/2012 2:42 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
The a priori are simply assumptions made before
performing a deduction which would be impossible to do
without the assumptions. An example would be that arithmetic
is true.
If you can do without an a priori, you could be a celebrated
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:18:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 2:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Dear Craig,
All of these points are instances of taking a particular evaluational
frame, making it absolute, and issuing judgements from it.
I think that they
On 12/15/2012 2:46 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:29:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 1:51 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
How about this:
Liberals are utopians, conservatives are skeptical of them.
Dear Roger,
No, All that is
Hi Stephen P. King
So what's Kant supposed to say ?
I'm not sure if this is true, but it would benefit me
if you agree to it ?
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From:
On 12/15/2012 2:55 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:51:40 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
I beg to differ.
My hero, Calvin Coolidge, the arch conservative of all time, once
said,
Don't just do something.Stand there.
That's great if
Hi Stephen P. King
I am tempted to say that the best solution is for
congress to shut down for a year.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/15/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:31:58 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
That's the old guilt argument. It's as old as Robin Hood
and is just as likely to stay with us as it works.
It's funny, I only feel guilt when I am guilty. It's called having a
conscience.
Craig
On 12/15/2012 3:20 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
You agree with Peirce, then, that truth is what a consensus
will inevitably arrive at.
Hi Roger,
No, that would be Utopian. Truth must be perpetually sought. It is
never arrived at, much like a limit of an infinite number of
On 12/15/2012 3:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
'm saying that to me it seems clear that some people did know better,
and that those people were Progressive. Again, you might disagree,
which is what I am asking. If you disagree, ok, cool, but why?
Otherwise it seems like you are saying that it is
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:44:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 2:46 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:29:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 1:51 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
How about this:
Liberals are utopians,
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:56:58 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 3:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
'm saying that to me it seems clear that some people did know better, and
that those people were Progressive. Again, you might disagree, which is
what I am asking. If
On 12/15/2012 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:56:58 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 3:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
'm saying that to me it seems clear that some people did know
better, and that those people were Progressive. Again,
On 12/15/2012 4:21 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:50:36 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 2:55 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:51:40 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
I beg to differ.
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 4:58:44 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:56:58 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 3:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
'm saying that to me it seems clear that
On 12/15/2012 7:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
Conservatives indeed generally resist most
(but not all) change because the changes
are emotionally based rather than logically based,
and so often do more harm than good.
And waste money.
You mean like abolishing slavery, universal
On 12/15/2012 9:50 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Brent Meeker appreciates John Clark's concern with pronouns.
John Clark is happy to read that but is somewhat skeptical it is true.
I think it
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:31:18 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 2:26 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:41:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 1:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:04:11 PM
On 12/15/2012 10:37 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Craig,
All of these points are instances of taking a particular evaluational frame, making
it absolute, and issuing judgements from it. It is what is known, to some, as
chronocentrism. It is simply wrongheaded. Unless you put yourself
On 12/15/2012 5:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 4:58:44 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:56:58 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul
King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 3:44 PM, Craig
On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Can you answer my question?
Because conservatives generally speak from the perspective of the
dominant culture.
Hi Craig,
Are there some other characteristics of conservatives that
identifies them? Does the particular nature of the
On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It is well understood that to draw conclusions from a
non-faithful sample of a population is to bias any possible
prediction. Why are you focusing on some partition of some
equivalence class: white, green, pink, yellow, purple,
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:10:16 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 5:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 4:58:44 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:56:58
On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You won't be a victim, but you will be at a disadvantage if you are
trying to live and prosper in a Conservative world which focuses on
the way things were rather than they way they are now, or could be, or
should be.
Hi Craig,
What is the
On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Why do they always seem to stagnate into polarization?
Because people stop talking to each other honestly and frankly.
Is that what typically happens?
Yes, so long as one side or both accept that the people that do
not agree with
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:43:42 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If you have a group of people getting rich while other people are in
bondage to them and stay poor, that presents a problem for social
mobility - which is being
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:52:53 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Why do they always seem to stagnate into polarization?
Because people stop talking to each other honestly and frankly.
Is that what typically happens?
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:15:28 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Can you answer my question?
Because conservatives generally speak from the perspective of the dominant
culture.
Hi Craig,
Are there some other
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:50:08 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You won't be a victim, but you will be at a disadvantage if you are
trying to live and prosper in a Conservative world which focuses on
the way things were rather than
On 12/15/2012 6:05 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/15/2012 7:09 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
Conservatives indeed generally resist most
(but not all) change because the changes
are emotionally based rather than logically based,
and so often do more harm than good.
And waste money.
You
On 12/15/2012 6:33 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Watch the whole thing, at least for context.
Ok, I watched the whole thing, and I will admit that Beck is not as
bad in that video as I have seen him before. He seems more open minded
than he was in the past, although maybe he's just
On 12/15/2012 3:20 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
You agree with Peirce, then, that truth is what a consensus
will inevitably arrive at.
Yes, iff that consensus has a simple rule: No contradictory fact
can be hidden by some physical means.
As politics shows, however, the
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:40:58 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It is well understood that to draw conclusions from a non-faithful
sample of a population is to bias any possible prediction. Why are you
focusing on some
On 12/15/2012 6:41 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/15/2012 10:37 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Craig,
All of these points are instances of taking a particular
evaluational frame, making it absolute, and issuing judgements from
it. It is what is known, to some, as chronocentrism. It is simply
On 12/16/2012 12:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Absolutes are absolute, they do not depend of circumstances nor
situation.
In reality though, there is nothing that does not depend on circumstances.
OK!
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
On 12/16/2012 12:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Yeah, but we happen to be siting in the 21st century using the
knowledge that has accumulated by science and so forth to pass
judgement on people that did not have our current capacity and we
can claim to not be bigoted? NO!
On 12/16/2012 12:55 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:43:42 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If you have a group of people getting rich while other people
are in
bondage to them and stay poor, that
On 12/16/2012 12:58 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What can be said about people in power who oppose compromise with the
other side? Can we say that it is the uncompromising obstructionists
who are causing problems and replace them with people who will not
necessarily vote with their party?
On 12/16/2012 1:02 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
t's not about how a person acts, it's about where the person is
allowed to act.
Allowed, how? Allowed implies not-allowed as well. Please
understand that I am not defending conservatism! I am defending logic
and reason!
What country clubs
On 12/16/2012 1:05 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What is the difference that makes a difference between being a
victim (of some oppressive action) and being at a disadvantage.
The
same outcomes obtain!
It's the framing. Calling someone a victim implicitly frames them as a
loser,
On 12/16/2012 1:18 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
if you are a black male in America you are six times more likely to go
to prison than a white male - and that this fact is not because white
males don't break the law as much as black males.
No, it is because of the disparity caused by a lack
81 matches
Mail list logo
