On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015, at 3:58 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
Which was also my problem with physicalism - in that why would a random
(i.e., not specially chosen) set of physical laws and initial conditions
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015, at 05:58, Rex Allen wrote:
I think my main problem with platonism is that I don't see why a
mathematical universe would generate beings who then develop true beliefs
about the mathematical nature
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/20/2015 5:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
Hi Telmo,
Is there a better starting point than consciousness?
My main thought was to suggest that the theory of evolution, taken to
it's logical conclusion, supports a Kantian
. It is
not an evolved mind but a mathematical one in the platonic sense but also
in the same way that we are not maths, but math is our model, He is not
only that.
2015-01-20 3:33 GMT+01:00 Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com:
Consciousness precedes axioms. Consciousness precedes logic. Axioms
That is not what I was thinking, but it makes a certain amount of sense.
Rex
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 4:43 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
Consciousness precedes axioms. Consciousness precedes logic.
That would
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Telmo,
Is there a better starting point than consciousness?
No.
My main thought was to suggest that the theory of evolution
ourselves to do science?
Another distasteful speculation: maybe there's *survival instinct* behind
nerds and geeks being bullied.
A more optimistic take: maybe real science is a possibility for the
future, if we transcend Darwinism.
Cheers
Telmo.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Rex
Consciousness precedes axioms. Consciousness precedes logic. Axioms and
logic exist within conscious experience - not vice versa. Consciousness
comes before everything else.
It is self-evident that there are conscious experiences. However, what
consciousness *is* - it’s ultimate nature - is
This world of dew
is only a world of dew -
and yet, and yet...
-- Kobayashi Issa, after the death of his daughter.
This world of quantum states
is only a world of quantum states -
and yet, and yet...
-- Rex Allen, after a very cold shower.
--
You received this message because you
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
Rex,
Do you have a non-platonist explanation
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 18, 2012, at 9:19 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Rex,
Do you have a non-platonist
be:
*I would say that mathematics is just very tightly plotted fiction where so
many details of the back-story are known up front that the plot can only
progress in very specific ways if it is to remain consistent and believable
to the reader. *
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Rex Allen
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.comwrote:
Rex,
Do you have a non-platonist explanation for the discovery of the
Mandelbrot set and the infinite complexity therein?
I find fictionalism to be the most plausible view of mathematics, with all
that implies for
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I think an easier way to intuit prime numbers that can't be represented as
rectangles, only a 1-wide lines.
While the concept of primes is straight forward, there is an unending set
of not-so-obvious facts that we
It seems to me that numbers are based on our ability to judge relative
magnitudes:
Which is bigger, which is closer, which is heavier, etc.
Many animals have this ability - called numeracy. Humans differ only
in the degree to which it is developed, and in our ability to build
higher level
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
HI Rex,
Nice post! Could you riff a bit on what the number PHI tells us about
this characteristic. How is it that it seems that our perceptions of the
world find anything that is close to a PHI valued
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 12:02 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/8/2011 8:08 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:01 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/8/2011 7:35 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
it makes so much sense.
the doctrine of physicalism
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:47 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/8/2011 11:35 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
In other words: What do we make of the fact that these predictions were
successful (or not)? What does this mean with respect to our beliefs
about
what kinds of things exist
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:01 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/8/2011 7:35 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous wrote:
it makes so much sense.
the doctrine of physicalism is in the least on the same plane as any
idealistic metaphysics, especially some form of objective idealism.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Constantine Pseudonymous
bsor...@gmail.com wrote:
Rex, your killing me, I was following you well as the most logical
seeming person here, but then you started plummeting into thoughtless
absurdities
Ha! Well, we all have our off days...
We can say that
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous
bsor...@gmail.com wrote:
Rex, I think your onto something here let me add a little
critique:
1. Explanation is subordinate to description.
2. Description is subordinate to observation.
3. Observation is subordinate to
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Constantine Pseudonymous
bsor...@gmail.com wrote:
Rex definitely makes the most sense in this group...
w00t w00t!
Take that, you other people in this group!!!
Rex
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:08 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/26/2011 7:23 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
So what does compatibilism have to say about this? Nothing useful, it
seems to me...
http://www.theatlantic.com/**magazine/archive/2011/07/the-**
brain-on-trial/8520/http
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 24 Jun 2011, at 17:49, Rex Allen wrote:
Awareness and self-awareness aren't related to the question of
consciousness. They fall well within the realm of the easy problems.
I have deduced this from some posts. You
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 4:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/26/2011 12:58 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
Possible, but unlikely. The practical benefits of more accurate and
useful theories should be more than sufficient to keep people
motivated.
The idea that our theories
So what does compatibilism have to say about this? Nothing useful, it seems
to me...
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-brain-on-trial/8520/
Advances in brain science are calling into question the volition behind many
criminal acts. A leading neuroscientist describes how
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales
cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote:
Can I recalibrate this a little so that you can scientifically handle
consciousness?
1) science is based on observation.
2) scientific 'observation' is 100% implemented by the consciousness of
scientists.
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 8:49 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/26/2011 2:37 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
We can never be sure it's real (and in
general it may incoherent patches), but on the other hand we can't be
sure
any particular part of it is not real.
Right, but asserting
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales
cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote:
There are empirical predictions made by T' that cannot be made by T and
these are entirely confined to the implementation of an observer.
What's an example of this?
Rex
--
You received this message
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:18 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Jason Resch-2 wrote:
I've posted this link before, and it is a long read, but I think it is a
great piece which shows what technology ultimately can accomplish:
http://frombob.to/you/aconvers.html
I like the
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Jun 2011, at 01:56, Rex Allen wrote:
Related to the Progress and Happiness thread:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/this-is-the-dream-time.html
But I am not sure there will be a point where everything worth
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Pilar Morales
pilarmorales...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Rex, thank you for generating this tread. Nice subject title. My
comments below
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
Even something that IS good for us will cause less
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/21/2011 8:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But comp denies that we can prove that a machine can think. Of course we
can prove that some machine has this or that competence. But for
intelligence/consciousness, this is not
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:35 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 6:08 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
If evolution by natural selection were correct, then it seems to me
Brain uploading for worms...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/science/21brain.html
Caenorhabditis elegans, as the roundworm is properly known, is a tiny,
transparent animal just a millimeter long. In nature, it feeds on the
bacteria that thrive in rotting plants and animals. It is a favorite
Related to the Progress and Happiness thread:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/this-is-the-dream-time.html
In the distant future, our descendants will probably have spread out
across space, and redesigned their minds and bodies to explode
Cambrian-style into a vast space of possible
If evolution by natural selection were correct, then it seems to me that if
the overall environment remained relatively stable for an extended period of
time - then regardless of how it ended up, humans would be at about same
level of happiness.
A paradise or a hell, the species should evolve
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 03:04:19PM -0400, Rex Allen wrote:
For instance, food. Most people really like sweets and salty greasy foods.
Much more than they like bland vegetables and whatnot.
The acquisition of junk
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 6:08 PM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
Rex Allen wrote:
If evolution by natural selection were correct, then it seems to me
that if the overall environment remained relatively stable for an
extended period of time - then regardless of how it ended up
Interesting paper by Aage Bohr, Nobel prize laureate and son of Niels Bohr:
The Principle Underlying Quantum Mechanics
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/832204/files/cer-002518578.pdf
The present article reports on the finding of the principle behind
quantum mechanics. The principle, referred to as
Instrumentalism, anyone?
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.12395,y.2011,no.3,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx
The range of phenomena physics has explained is more than impressive;
it underlies the whole of modern civilization. Nevertheless, as a
physicist travels along his (in
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 3:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/11/2011 7:51 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
Instrumentalism, anyone?
I'll have a helping. And I'll also note that instrumentalism with a pinch
of common sense is as good as it gets.
Common sense? What is this common sense
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Jun 2011, at 16:51, Rex Allen wrote:
Instrumentalism, anyone?
It is not because a theology fails that we have to abandon all theologies.
That would lead indeed to instrumentalism, and this would kill all
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Jun 2011, at 07:14, Rex Allen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Jun 2011, at 00:52, Rex Allen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Russell Standish li
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
? On the contrary. It was your argument against determinism which I took as
incompatible with science or scientific attitude. But third person
determinism does not entails first person determinism, nor do determinism in
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm also fine with block-multiverse. And with a block-mindscape.
Neither of which allow for free will. Since both of which are static
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/9/2011 3:41 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
As I always say, free will is the ability to do something stupid. And
from an evolutionary point of view, that is actually a useful ability.
We are in violent agreement. :-)
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Jun 2011, at 00:52, Rex Allen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
It is not that hard to get, so would be worth your
while trying to understand.
I think I
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand what is the purpose of such a comment... one that I've
seen too many times.
Which comment?
In general, the purpose of my comments is just to articulate my
thoughts in some more-or-less coherent and
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps so, perhaps there is only Rex's beliefs. Perhaps only rex's
beliefs
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 04:42:46PM -0400, Rex Allen wrote:
How can any of those questions be approached by conscious entities in
a deterministic computational framework?
Everything you’ll ever learn, every mistake
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Perhaps you haven't understood the full import yet.
I understand. I just don't find your story to be compelling.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
How can any of those questions be approached by conscious entities in
a deterministic computational framework?
Everything you’ll ever learn, every
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Jun 2011, at 19:06, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how
computation occurs due to the objective
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 4, 2011, at 1:03 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Godel showed no single axiomatic system captures all mathematical truth,
any
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how
computation occurs due to the objective truth or falsehood of mathematical
propositions is as follows:
Most would agree that a statement such as 8 is
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing I thought of recently which is a good way of showing how
By coincidence, I recently came across the following quote from Roger
Penrose's paper “Beyond the Doubting of a Shadow - A Reply to
Commentaries on Shadows of the Mind”.
Offered without comment. I just thought it was interesting:
==
What kind of a theory might it be that determines these
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 1:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/16/2011 7:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
[SPK]
I was trying to be sure that I took that involves the possibility that
the OMs are computationally disjoint into account. This covers your example,
I think...
I am
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:38 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/18/2011 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to remind the
consciousness of the blanche machine, the consciousness of the virgin
Löbian machine. Memories only
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:26 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/18/2011 9:55 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
If there are commonalities in individuals who manifest certain
behaviors, then it makes sense to look at those commonalities as
causal (especially once a plausible mechanism can
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 6:32 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
We exercise a decisionmaking 'will' that is a product of the 'mini'
everything we are under the influences of. But free it is not.
Well put.
So, here is a summary of Dennett's position:
Dennett makes use of his treatment of
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Apr 2011, at 21:16, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Apr 2011, at 22:25, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Hence Rex might well be right that the discussion
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Th fact that you say that compatibilist free will is faux will or worst
subjective will means that you *do* believe in incompatibilist free
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 4:41 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 15.04.2011 21:16 Rex Allen said the following:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I think it is a bit dangerous, especially that there is already a
social tendency to dissolve
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Apr 2011, at 22:25, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
This week in Die Zeit there were two papers about love and fidelity. One
more scientific, another more philosophic. In the latter there is a couple
of paragraphs related to
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@charter.net wrote:
-Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 3:45 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [OT] Love and free will
On 14 Apr 2011, at 22:25, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:48 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/15/2011 12:16 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
Critics of free will in the absolute incompatibilist sense are correct.
Critics of compatibilist free will object to the misuse of terms by
compatibilists, not to the concepts
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/15/2011 1:36 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:48 PM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/15/2011 12:16 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
Critics of free will in the absolute incompatibilist sense
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
Could someone recommend a nice and not that long reading (the best in the
form of en executive summary) on absolute incompatibilist sense and
compatibilist theories of free will?
On the compatibilism side, maybe Daniel
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:59 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
In fundamental physics where evolution is time-symmetric, the distinction
between cause and effect is just an arbitrary choice. In more practical
terms cause usually refers to some part of a process we could chose to
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Brent and 1Z,
The paper you referenced says the following:
No doubt life, as we know it, depends sensitively on the parameters of our
universe. However, other forms of life might exist under different
conditions.
I
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 1/27/2011 8:34 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
I would have thought that dreams would be a pretty clear
counter-example to the claim that consciousness requires a world to
interact with...?
Do you think you could have
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 1/28/2011 7:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
On 1/27/2011 10:08 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Brent Meekermeeke
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Rex,
Well here I disagree (with Wikipedia, not with Turing, although he is
responsible for this widespread misconception).
Well, I'll buy that, I reckon. Though the usage of the term infinite
tape is pretty widespread.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 1/27/2011 10:08 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
But if the
emulation attempts to be local then it must include inherent randomness -
which I
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
What does locally mean in this context? I doubt that consciousness is
strictly local in the physical sense; it requires and world to interact
with.
I would have thought that dreams would be a pretty clear
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
But if the
emulation attempts to be local then it must include inherent randomness -
which I think is not Turing computable.
The Turing machine could draw the required randomness from a tape of
random bits, couldn't
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 12/7/2010 10:13 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
So I don't strenuously deny the possibility of something
non-experiential existing - but ultimately I'm not sure what it means
to say that something exists outside of experience
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Dec 2010, at 19:29, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
On 11/27/2010 1:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 29 Nov 2010, at 05:15, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Would
you admit then, that a computer which interprets bits the same way as a
brain could be conscious
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com
wrote
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 2:45 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 7:40 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:08 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 6:49 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
Given that there are an infinite number
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 11/28/2010 8:15 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
...
Things might be that way. But this requires an explanation of the
existence of the information and the interpreter. And then an
explanation of the explanation
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 11/27/2010 1:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
Even if you have used some physical system (like a computer) that can
be interpreted as executing
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
With your definition of free will, it does not exist. I think we agree.
Very good. So what we are really arguing about here is whether your
definition or my definition is closer to what is generally meant when
people use
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 11/27/2010 12:53 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
Free will = ability to make choices that are neither random nor caused
This is a false dichotomy. If a deterministic algorithm evaluates the
probability of success for three
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
Information is just a catch-all term for what is being
represented. But, as you say, the same information can be
represented in *many* different
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
But I also deny that mechanism can account for consciousness (except
by fiat declaration that it does).
Rex,
I am interested in your reasoning
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:08 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 27, 6:49 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
Given that there are an infinite number of ways that your information
could be represented, how likely is it that your experience really is
caused by a biological
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:17 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 6:01 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
So Agrippa's Trilemma revolves around the question of how we can
justify our beliefs.
It seems to me that an entirely acceptable solution is just to accept
that we
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:44 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 6:31 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
Any defense of free will must allow for ultimate responsibility for
actions.
Mine does
Random events don't qualify as free will.
A deterministic process doesn't
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Nov 2010, at 19:47, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But your reasoning does not apply to free will in the sense I gave: the
ability to choose among
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:12 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 21, 6:43 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:36 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
No-one is. They are just valid descriptions. There is no argument
to the effect that logic is causal
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:20 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 21, 6:35 pm, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:28 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 18, 6:31 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
If there is a reason, then the reason
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:28 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 18, 6:31 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
My position is:
So either there is a reason for what I choose to do, or there isn't.
If there is a reason, then the reason determined the choice. No free
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Nov 2010, at 07:31, Rex Allen wrote:
As for my definition of free will:
The ability to make choices that are neither random nor caused.
Obviously there is no such ability, since random and caused
exhaust
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:36 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Nov 19, 3:11 am, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Rex,
Your post reminded me of the quote (of which I cannot recall the source)
where
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
Have I understood you correctly, that the current discussion has been
already predetermined by the initial conditions of the Universe?
Well...maybe. But I'm not overly concerned with the question of
whether the causal
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 11/21/2010 10:43 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:36 AM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Therefore some other, sufficiently complex, robots have intentionality
Not proven.
Proof
1 - 100 of 250 matches
Mail list logo
