On 11.08.2012 15:13 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 8/11/2012 4:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 10.08.2012 00:55 Russell Standish said the following:
The point being that life need not be intelligent. In fact 999.9% of
life (but whatever measure, numbers, biomass etc) is unintelligent
On 06.08.2012 21:50 meekerdb said the following:
How's Bruno going to criticize those darn physicists if they just won't
stick to materialism.
Brent
Original Message
Link to the PDF: http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf
I find it strange that the author has
On 06.08.2012 19:29 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 8/6/2012 8:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
? Why? It's not complicated! A person must be, at least,
nameable. A person has always has a name.
[BM]
Why?
Because names are necessary for persistent distinguishability. Let
Alberto,
I have one more question.
On 31.07.2012 11:08 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
Evgenii, great questions
2012/7/30 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
On 30.07.2012 11:19 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
...
Let us say that there is some conglomerate of atoms. When it
On 31.07.2012 01:05 Russell Standish said the following:
...
With complete information, a totally rational being makes optimal
choices, and has no free will, but always beats an irrational being.
To this end, one has first to define the sense of life formally.
The goal to survive is clear
Alberto,
Thank you for your answers. I will make one comment now. I plan to read
Schneider on molecular machines (thanks for the link) and then I may
make more comments.
On 31.07.2012 11:08 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
Evgenii, great questions
2012/7/30 Evgenii
On 30.07.2012 11:19 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
Evgenii : I thank you for your questions, since It helps me to
re-examine and clarify my position.
2012/7/29 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
On 29.07.2012 11:28 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
These psycho-philosophical arguments
On 28.07.2012 23:43 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 7/28/2012 4:23 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Now I have found the original paper by McTaggart in Internet:
http://www.ditext.com/mctaggart/time.html
...
Dear Evgenii,
Never would I cast aspersions upon McTaggart, but what he
On 29.07.2012 11:28 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
These psycho-philosophical arguments like the one of John Ellis are
what in evolutionary Psychology is called an explanation based on
proximate causes.
I guess that science is based on observation and hence it might be good
to define
John Ellis McTaggart
The Unreality of Time
Mind: A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy 17 (1908): 456-473
I have learned about the McTaggart's A- and B-series from John Yates.
http://www.ifsgoa.com/
Now I have found the original paper by McTaggart in Internet:
On 22.07.2012 17:52 Stephen P. King said the following:
This is great news for Bruno! ;-)
I was interested in the computational complexity factor involved.
http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/21/big-leap-in-bio-engineering-scientists-simulate-an-entire-organism-in-software-for-the-first-time-ever/
On 22.07.2012 17:52 Stephen P. King said the following:
This is great news for Bruno! ;-)
I was interested in the computational complexity factor involved.
http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/21/big-leap-in-bio-engineering-scientists-simulate-an-entire-organism-in-software-for-the-first-time-ever/
On 18.07.2012 22:26 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/18/2012 12:21 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 18.07.2012 21:08 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/18/2012 10:32 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
For example, the fantastic, uinmatched success the
judeo-christian civilization until XVIII century
On 18.07.2012 21:08 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/18/2012 10:32 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
For example, the fantastic, uinmatched success the judeo-christian
civilization until XVIII century at least, as measured in
objective evolutionary terms.
You mean the one that squelched Greek
On 17.07.2012 09:54 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 16 Jul 2012, at 21:05, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 15.07.2012 16:50 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 14 Jul 2012, at 18:21, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
but it looks like that your motive is also close to the Game
of Life. What
On 15.07.2012 16:50 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 14 Jul 2012, at 18:21, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
but it looks like that your motive is also close to the Game of
Life. What difference do you see in this respect?
With comp, after UDA, and supposing it is 100% valid, the choice
On 14.07.2012 01:15 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/13/2012 4:07 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
It must be, because this has been a very sucessful mith.
Yes, it was no doubt successful in keeping the peasants believing the
in divine knowledge of the free loading priests.
Brent
One can say
On 13.07.2012 20:43 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/13/2012 11:14 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
My question would be not about responsibility, I am not that far.
Let us take a chess game (the example from John). We have two
people playing chess and then for example the M-theory.
How would
On 13.07.2012 22:14 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
There are no experts in this field because there is no field.
The field does exist.
What does a expert on theology know about the nature of reality that
a non-expert does not?
On 14.07.2012 10:26 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 13 Jul 2012, at 20:26, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.07.2012 19:40 John Clark said the following:
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
...
An interesting question is however, where resulting visual
mental
On 14.07.2012 11:00 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 14 Jul 2012, at 10:42, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
If to speak about your theorem, it is unclear to me, how the first
person view accesses numbers and mathematical objects.
Like a digital machine, which can access numbers encoded
On 14.07.2012 11:52 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 14 Jul 2012, at 11:16, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 14.07.2012 11:00 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 14 Jul 2012, at 10:42, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
If to speak about your theorem, it is unclear to me, how the
first person view
On 12.07.2012 22:08 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/12/2012 12:27 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 11.07.2012 18:21 John Clark said the following:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
I understand but the question in principle still remains.
Who play the
chess, I
On 12.07.2012 22:44 John Clark said the following:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
I am not an expert in this field
There are no experts in this field because there is no field.
The field does exist. You may want for example to read Newton. He was a
On 13.07.2012 19:53 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/13/2012 10:30 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
The field does exist. You may want for example to read Newton. He
was a fan of theology.
Newton on theology is one of the things I would least like to read.
Why? Presumably there were questions
On 13.07.2012 19:52 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/13/2012 10:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.07.2012 22:08 meekerdb said the following:
...
In Dennett's conception 'free will' is just a marker for
responsibility; hence his aphorism, You can avoid responsibility
for everything if you
On 07.07.2012 19:40 John Clark said the following:
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
...
An interesting question is however, where resulting visual mental
concepts are located.
I find it about as interesting as asking where big or the number
eleven is located
On 11.07.2012 19:36 John Clark said the following:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
In Germany theology still belongs to universities. What I like is
that you will find as a department of theoretical theology as well
as a department of practical theology.
On 11.07.2012 18:26 John Clark said the following:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is
determined by physical law
Does that mean you CAN imagine how free will can operate if our
behavior is NOT
On 11.07.2012 18:21 John Clark said the following:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
I understand but the question in principle still remains. Who
play the
chess, I or the M-theory?
There is no logical reason to think those two ways of explaining the
same
On 10.07.2012 21:48 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/10/2012 12:38 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Hence according to the authors, the M-theory governs absolutely
everything including social sciences. But I am afraid that this is
not what you would expect.
Why would you not expect a theory
On 10.07.2012 20:38 Stephen P. King said the following:
Say that it is not so!
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428428/higgs-boson-may-be-an-imposter-say-particle/?ref=rss
Hi Stephen,
Recently I have read
Karin Knorr Cetina, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge
This
On 10.07.2012 09:47 Bruno Marchal said the following:
...
The whole of the human sciences is perverted since theology get out
of the academy. Philosophy is often just a religious reaction to
institutionalized religion. God id dead, said Nietzsche, so ...
what do we do?
In Germany theology
On 10.07.2012 18:03 John Clark said the following:
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
I do not not understand in this respect your analogy with chess.
You may know all the rules of chess but that does not mean you know
what all the complex interactions
On 10.07.2012 19:49 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
There is something deeply religious in many scientifics in his quest
to expand their Truth. And there is also something very philosophical
indeed. But they ignore both. They ignore their beliefs and their
positivistic metaphisics, born in
On 07.07.2012 21:54 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 07 Jul 2012, at 15:31, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
My comments to Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard
Mlodinow, especially to the statement from the book
“Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy
is dead
On 08.07.2012 19:29 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
What I cannot comprehend though is why some people, which after all
are also just occasional conglomerates of small particles obeying
the Theory-of-Everything, react very differently
On 07.07.2012 19:40 John Clark said the following:
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
Hawking and Mlodinow start with the statement that free will is
illusion
If they said that, and I don't recall that they did, they were being
much too kind in equating the free
My comments to Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow,
especially to the statement from the book
“Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is
dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science,
particularly physics. Scientists have
On 02.07.2012 22:01 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/2/2012 12:45 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 02.07.2012 21:08 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/2/2012 11:50 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Where to will you place 'description' in the physicalism? Is
this just some excitation of natural
On 02.07.2012 20:12 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/2/2012 7:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Do you really not see any difference between tables and chairs and
people and numbers,
Chairs and people are also mathematical objects, just really
complex ones with a large information content. This
On 30.06.2012 22:31 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/30/2012 12:20 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Jun 2012, at 18:44, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I think that you have mentioned that mechanism is incompatible
with materialism. How this follows then?
Because concerning computation and emulation
On 01.07.2012 09:38 meekerdb said the following:
On 7/1/2012 12:25 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 30.06.2012 22:31 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/30/2012 12:20 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Jun 2012, at 18:44, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I think that you have mentioned that mechanism
On 30.06.2012 11:14 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 29 Jun 2012, at 20:01, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 11.04.2012 11:11 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 10 Apr 2012, at 21:21, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Hence if you know something in Internet or in the written form,
I would
On 11.04.2012 11:11 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 10 Apr 2012, at 21:21, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Hence if you know something in Internet or in the written form, I
would appreciate your advice. The best about 20 pages, not too
little, and not to much.
OK I found the paper
On 26.06.2012 04:14 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/25/2012 6:22 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
Hi,
Hales, C. G. 2012 The modern phlogiston: why 'thinking machines'
don't need computers TheConversation. The Conversation media
Group.
On 26.06.2012 20:56 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/26/2012 11:49 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Here there is a big question whether an engineer has free will (is
an engineer different in this respect from a scientist?).
I think we've already elucidated several different possible meanings
On 22.06.2012 08:03 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 6/22/2012 1:50 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
I have many questions.
One is what if truth were malleable? --
HI Brian,
If it was malleable, how would we detect the modifications? If our
standards of truth varied, how could we tell? This
On 18.06.2012 21:56 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Monday, June 18, 2012 3:12:35 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Do you have a good definition of 'cause'?
Any change originating from beyond your own direct participation, ie,
the consequence of any motive other than your own
On 18.06.2012 23:53 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/18/2012 12:37 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 18.06.2012 19:33 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/13/2012 1:02 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
And what is that meaning which they have expounded with
unanimity and has anyone who is *not* a theologian
On 19.06.2012 09:50 Bruno Marchal said the following:
..
This might be because you confine yourself to christian theologians.
I read a long time ago a book (La malle de Newton) which confirms
Newton neo-platonic tendencies. Keep in mind that neo-platonist have
to hide their idea since Rome,
On 18.06.2012 16:39 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
But then why to talk that every event has a cause?
I don't know what you're talking about. I never said everything had
a cause, in fact I have a strong hunch that some things
On 18.06.2012 19:33 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/13/2012 1:02 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
And what is that meaning which they have expounded with unanimity
and has anyone who is *not* a theologian ever believed it?
I believe that educated people, for example scientists, have
followed
In his book An Essay on Metaphysics in Part IIIc Causation, Collingwood
has considered what could mean that every event must have a cause. This
could be interesting for a discussion on free will, as Collingwood shows
that causation presupposes free will. In other words, if free will is to
be
On 17.06.2012 17:15 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
For me personally, it is a puzzle why modern physics still needs
that every event has a cause.
I don't know what you're talking about. Modern physics does not say
every
On 13.06.2012 18:24 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/13/2012 1:57 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.06.2012 20:17 meekerdb said the following:
Here's a thoughtful blog on the meaning of theology. Bruno may
want to comment, since his conception of theology might answer
the questions put forward
On 08.06.2012 21:00 Pzomby said the following:
Using mathematics, computations and symbols; human embodied
consciousness can (using computers) create models, simulations,
emulations, depictions, replications, representations etc. of
observations of the physical universe and its processes.
This
On 09.06.2012 12:36 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 09 Jun 2012, at 08:39, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 08.06.2012 21:00 Pzomby said the following:
Using mathematics, computations and symbols; human embodied
consciousness can (using computers) create models, simulations,
emulations
On 09.06.2012 14:06 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
On 09.06.2012 12:36 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 09 Jun 2012, at 08:39, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 08.06.2012 21:00 Pzomby said the following:
Using mathematics, computations
On 09.06.2012 18:07 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
On 09.06.2012 14:06 Quentin Anciaux said the following:
2012/6/9 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
On 09.06.2012 12:36 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 09 Jun 2012, at 08:39, Evgenii Rudnyi
On 09.06.2012 12:36 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 09 Jun 2012, at 08:39, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 08.06.2012 21:00 Pzomby said the following:
...
Said that, I still see a computer in front of me (or a
computer cluster at work, well I do not see it there but
rather access but I
On 09.06.2012 20:39 David Nyman said the following:
On 9 June 2012 19:22, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
No, I have meant
a) simulated computer
b) simulated myself (but not in a)
Now I consider a) and b). This is after all some instructions
executed by some Turing machine. It seems
I have started reading Collingwood's An Essay on Metaphysics and I see
one definition that seems to be pertinent to this discussion.
p. 27 Def. 4. To assume it to suppose by an act of free choice.
A person who 'makes an assumption' is making a supposition about which
he is aware that he might
On 06.06.2012 06:50 meekerdb said the following:
Here's your closest continuation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0Efeature=relmfu
Brent
Excellent. Thanks for the link.
Evgenii
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch is full of Popper's
methodology. Also one can find there a statement that the knowledge
exists objectively.
On the other hand, Maarten Hoenen in his lectures several times has
mentioned Popper's World 3. Interestingly enough that though Deutsch
On 01.06.2012 21:30 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/1/2012 11:43 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means and
neither do you.
John K Clark
Of course there are various degrees to which it can be free but
that doesn't mean free will is a
On 01.06.2012 19:19 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/1/2012 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 May 2012, at 23:12, meekerdb wrote:
...
Sam Harris just wrote a short book titled Free Will and from
the comments it has elicited it's apparent that there is very
little agreement as to what it
On 01.06.2012 20:48 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/1/2012 8:59 AM, John Clark wrote:
Believers in 'contra causal free will' suppose that it did not,
that
my 'soul' or 'spirit' initiated the physical process without any
determinative physical antecedent.
A belief that was enormously
On 28.05.2012 22:42 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 28 May 2012, at 21:09, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Bruno,
I believe that this time I could say that you express your
position. For example in your two answers below it does not look
like I don't defend that position.
I don't think so. I
On 27.05.2012 23:04 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 5/27/2012 4:07 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
A good extension. Velmans does not consider such a case but he says
that the perceptions are located exactly where one perceives them.
In this case, it seems that it should not pose
On 28.05.2012 17:48 John Mikes said the following:
Evgenij: to your last par (small remark): (and I repeat the outburst
of a religious scientist upon my post questioning his 'faith'): Who
gave you the audacity to feel so superior to (some?) WORKING CLASS?
(I apologize: you seem to be only the
, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
...
Velmans introduces perceptual projection but this remains as the
Hard Problem in his book, how exactly perceptual projection
happens.
It does not make sense. This is doing Aristotle mistake twice.
Velmans contrast his model with reductionism
On 26.05.2012 21:06 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 26 May 2012, at 16:48, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 26.05.2012 11:30 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 26 May 2012, at 08:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
In my view, it would be nicer to treat such a question
historically. Your
On 24.05.2012 09:52 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 May 2012, at 20:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
nominalism that they are just notation and do not exist as such
independently from the mind.
But that distinction is usually made in the aristotelian context,
where some concrete
On 26.05.2012 11:30 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 26 May 2012, at 08:47, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
In my view, it would be nicer to treat such a question
historically. Your position based on your theorem, after all, is
one of possible positions.
What do you mean by my position? I
I have just finished reading Understanding Consciousness by Max Velmans
and below there are a couple of comments to the book.
The book is similar to Jeffrey Gray's Consciousness: Creeping up on the
Hard Problem in a sense that it takes phenomenal consciousness
seriously. Let me give an
On 26.05.2012 07:57 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 5/26/2012 1:50 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
http://uncomp.uwe.ac.uk/LCCOMP/en/Files/Entries/2012/5/23_A_Computable_Universe.html
Overview
This volume, with a foreword by Sir Roger Penrose, discusses the
foundations of computation
http://uncomp.uwe.ac.uk/LCCOMP/en/Files/Entries/2012/5/23_A_Computable_Universe.html
Overview
This volume, with a foreword by Sir Roger Penrose, discusses the
foundations of computation in relation to nature.
It focuses on two main questions:
What is computation?
How does nature compute?
On 23.05.2012 10:47 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 May 2012, at 01:22, Stephen P. King wrote:
...
If mathematical objects are not within the category of Mental
then that is news to philosophers...
If mathematical objects are within the category of Mental then that
is news to
On 23.05.2012 19:43 Stephen P. King said the following:
...
There seems to be a divergence of definitions occurring. It might be
better for me to withdraw from philosophical discussions for a while
and focus just on mathematical questions, like the dependence on
order of a basis...
I
On 23.05.2012 20:01 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 23 May 2012, at 19:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Let us take terms like information, computation, etc. Are they
mental or mathematical?
Information is vague, and can be both.
Computation is mathematical, by using the Church
Stephen,
I have a more general question. I am not a mathematician and I do not
quite understand the relationship between mathematics and the world that
surround me.
It seems to me that your writing implies that there is the intimate
connections between mathematics and the Universe. Could
On 16.05.2012 05:53 Colin Geoffrey Hales said the following:
Hi all,
You might be interested in a little article I wrote, published here:
http://theconversation.edu.au/learning-experience-lets-take-consciousness-in-from-the-cold-6739
I am embarked on the long process of getting science to
On 14.05.2012 10:29 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 13 May 2012, at 23:19, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
Yet, I guess that even not all physicists believe in multiverse. When
you convince all physicists that multivers exists, I will start
thinking about it.
On reality, usually all humans
On 13.05.2012 04:38 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/12/2012 4:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Evgenii,
All this is well known. Copenhagen theory, or unique-universe theory
are non computationalist dualist theories.
Not all of them, at least not in the sense of dualist you mean. Adrian
Kent has
On 13.05.2012 15:09 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 12 May 2012, at 14:59, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 12.05.2012 13:33 Bruno Marchal said the following:
Evgenii,
All this is well known. Copenhagen theory, or unique-universe theory
are non computationalist dualist theories.
But as Shimony
A few quotes below to dualism from Max Velmans.
Evgenii
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/05/quantum-dualist-interactionism.html
In Chapter 2, Conscious Souls, Brains and Quantum Mechanics there is a
nice section Quantum Dualist Interactionism (p. 17 – 21) where Max
Velmans describes works that
On 12.05.2012 13:33 Bruno Marchal said the following:
Evgenii,
All this is well known. Copenhagen theory, or unique-universe theory
are non computationalist dualist theories.
But as Shimony has shown, the idea that consciousness collapse the wave
leads to many difficulties, like non local
Below there is a message from Facebook where his author briefly
describes a book with papers about Libet's experiment. I guess that this
should be useful for discussions about free will.
Evgenii
---
Review :Conscious Will and Responsibility: A Tribute to Benjamin Libet
The editors of
On 09.05.2012 08:47 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 08 May 2012, at 21:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/8/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 8, 2:17 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 07.05.2012 22:21 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdbmeeke
On 08.05.2012 21:48 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/8/2012 11:09 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
For the development of science, it is necessary to have a believe that
equations discovered by a human mind could be used for the whole
history of Universe. At that time, this belief came from
On 07.05.2012 22:19 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/7/2012 12:29 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 20:11 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/7/2012 10:42 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 04:17 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/6/2012 5:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 6, 4
On 07.05.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/7/2012 12:09 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 19:52 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
To me the logic of trinity is perverse in the same extent as quantum
On 07.05.2012 22:21 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
...
Sure science grew out of Christianity, out of the decay and fragmentation of
Christianity.
When Christianity was strong and in control is what we call The Dark Ages.
Now that
On 06.05.2012 22:06 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/6/2012 10:51 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 05.05.2012 23:34 meekerdb said the following:
...
I would agree with that. Rome fell for other, more material reasons. But
its fall created a power vacuum which was filled by organized
On 07.05.2012 04:17 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/6/2012 5:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 6, 4:06 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Newton, Boyle, Tyndall, Descarte, Laplace,
Kepler,...none of them were from the universities, which were
dominated by theology.
All of them were
On 07.05.2012 19:52 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
To me the logic of trinity is perverse in the same extent as quantum
mechanics.
Perverse it may be but it's not my business to judge what quantum mechanics
does in
On 07.05.2012 20:01 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/7/2012 10:35 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
It must have had its causes, but I note that it coincided with the
reformation and the fragmentation of the Church's power. Science
developed most in England where Henry VIII had divorced
On 07.05.2012 20:11 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/7/2012 10:42 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 04:17 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/6/2012 5:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 6, 4:06 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Newton, Boyle, Tyndall, Descarte, Laplace,
Kepler
On 05.05.2012 23:34 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/5/2012 1:07 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
According to Prof Hoenen, the logic of trinity was at that time
basically in the blood. He gave several examples including even Marx.
According to Prof Hoenen, the logic in Marx's Capital
201 - 300 of 619 matches
Mail list logo
