It's a good discussion. In fact I've been independently thinking about the
matter of Dedekind's original argument as it's discussed in Webb's book
Mechanism, Mentalism, and Metamathematics (a book Bruno has referred to
multiple times on this list).
Does anyone know of other attempts to prove
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
How could something non-living lead to something living?
Non-living and living are just different qualities of experience. Living
systems are nested non-living systems, which gives rise to mortality and
condenses
On 20.03.2013 22:59 meekerdb said the following:
On 3/20/2013 1:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.03.2013 20:18 meekerdb said the following:
On 3/20/2013 2:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
At the Occam's time, realists were people who have believed that
universals exist. Occam has
On 20.03.2013 22:14 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 3/20/2013 4:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.03.2013 20:18 meekerdb said the following:
On 3/20/2013 2:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.03.2013 22:25 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
...
Presumably his positions
On 20.03.2013 22:06 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 3/20/2013 2:51 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
...
Are you a follower of La Rouche? I do not see such opposition
between Plato and Aristotle . Aristotle believed in essences and
ideas and in the the inner sense of what is right,
On 3/21/2013 3:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.03.2013 22:14 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 3/20/2013 4:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.03.2013 20:18 meekerdb said the following:
On 3/20/2013 2:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.03.2013 22:25 Alberto G. Corona said the
On 21.03.2013 12:20 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 3/21/2013 3:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.03.2013 22:14 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 3/20/2013 4:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.03.2013 20:18 meekerdb said the following:
On 3/20/2013 2:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi
On 3/21/2013 7:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 21.03.2013 12:20 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 3/21/2013 3:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.03.2013 22:14 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 3/20/2013 4:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.03.2013 20:18 meekerdb said the
On 21.03.2013 12:44 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 3/21/2013 7:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 21.03.2013 12:20 Stephen P. King said the following:
...
How do we forget what we cannot even know that we know?
As far as I know, that's the main Sartre's point. You just start
with
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 11:42:38 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
At least you now agree that the atoms in my body could be replaced and
I would feel the same. What if the atoms were replaced by a
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 17:34, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 16:52, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Russell Standish
On Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:44:16 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
How could something non-living lead to something living?
Non-living and living are just different qualities of experience. Living
Leibnizian causation differs from most other forms of causation in that
no forces are involved, only ideas, although from any objective viewpoint
it might seem as if the usual types of forces cause the event.
This makes sense if the resultant situation is a meaningful one
because generated by
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 Tom Bayley tjp.bay...@gmail.com wrote:
I think explanations are important to prove causation ;-) and it's
interesting that you can break this example down. Each explanatory step is
materially plausible (it has a satisfactory public explanation), right up
to the
On Thursday, March 21, 2013 10:42:02 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 Tom Bayley tjp.b...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
I think explanations are important to prove causation ;-) and it's
interesting that you can break this example down. Each explanatory step is
On Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:42:34 AM UTC-4, Roger Clough wrote:
Leibnizian causation differs from most other forms of causation in that
no forces are involved, only ideas, although from any objective viewpoint
it might seem as if the usual types of forces cause the event.
This makes
On 20 Mar 2013, at 19:51, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2013/3/20 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 19 Mar 2013, at 22:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Since I´m more in the side of Aquinas/Aristotle -or even Plato
sometimes-
?
I see Plato and Aristotle as the most opposite view we can have on
On 20 Mar 2013, at 20:16, John Mikes wrote:
3-19-13 John M wrote:
---
...I am not faithful enough to believe in MY free will and go
to hell by force of this misconception. I may make mistakes.
I am not deterministically forced to comply with all facets of the
On 20 Mar 2013, at 20:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/20/2013 2:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.03.2013 22:25 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
Since I´m more in the side of Aquinas/Aristotle -or even Plato
sometimes- I don not share the Occam views.Occam was a nominalist,
that is rejected
On 20 Mar 2013, at 21:01, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.03.2013 20:18 meekerdb said the following:
On 3/20/2013 2:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.03.2013 22:25 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
...
I see a bit of irony in the fact that people who believe in
physical reality often
On 20 Mar 2013, at 21:08, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/20/2013 6:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/What-is-the-Nature-of-Personal-Identity-Peter-van-Inwagen-/176
He
On 20 Mar 2013, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130320115111.htm
We are examining the activity in the cerebral cortex as a whole.
The brain is a non-stop, always-active system. When we perceive
something, the information does not end up in a
On Thursday, March 21, 2013 1:28:24 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Mar 2013, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130320115111.htm
We are examining the activity in the cerebral cortex *as a whole*. The
brain is a non-stop, always-active
On 3/21/2013 12:18 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.03.2013 22:59 meekerdb said the following:
On 3/20/2013 1:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 20.03.2013 20:18 meekerdb said the following:
On 3/20/2013 2:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
At the Occam's time, realists were people who have
Dear Bruno,
it is so fascinating to read about universal machines.
Is there a place where I could learn in short, understandable terms what
they may be? Then again the difference between a 'Turing machine' and a
'physical computer' (what I usually call our embryonic Kraxlwerk).
I grew up into my
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 01:46:11PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But still, I tend to bet that creativity, if he can exploit it, is still
independent of it.
I still find it hard to grasp how we could have a creative
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMXqyf13HeM
DEAN RADIN: Men Who Stare at Photons, Part 1 | EU 2013
Skip to the last 10 minutes for the brain evidence if you like.
Craig
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from
On 3/21/2013 4:40 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno,
it is so fascinating to read about universal machines.
Is there a place where I could learn in short, understandable terms
what they may be? Then again the difference between a 'Turing machine'
and a 'physical computer' (what I usually call
On 3/21/2013 6:04 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 01:46:11PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But still, I tend to bet that creativity, if he can exploit it, is still
independent of it.
I still find it
The argument for my view is an inference from roughly four premises:
(1) Conscious experience exists.
(2) Conscious experience is not logically supervenient on the physical.
(3) If there are positive facts that are not logically supervenient on the
physical facts, then physicalism is
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
To recap then, the difference between non-living and living is only visible
to the living. Biological units are vastly larger and slower, more
vulnerable in a thousand ways than molecular units, but they are a sign
On Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:06:51 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
To recap then, the difference between non-living and living is only
visible
to the living. Biological units are vastly larger and
On 3/19/2013 11:24 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.03.2013 19:17 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:38:21 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Intimate relation is not causality. The
33 matches
Mail list logo
