On Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:35:58 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 19 June 2014 14:34, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 19 June 2014 02:01, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special
On Saturday, June 21, 2014 4:53:29 AM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Quentin Anciaux allc...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
I won't enter with you again on this debate
Coward.
Call him a coward johnnie boywot about you? :O) I just went to that
trouble
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:03:53 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
On 22 Jun 2014, at 6:33 am, John Clark wrote:
A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have sufficient
patience,
Interestingly, it turns out that those with moderate IQs have the highest
levels of
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 1:54:41 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:03:53 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
On 22 Jun 2014, at 6:33 am, John Clark wrote:
A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have
sufficient patience,
Interestingly, it
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to
this later with the rest, cheer.
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 3:02:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to
this
this bit is actually your core reasoning on my reading: *Evolution can see
intelligence but it can't directly see consciousness any better than we
can*
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 3:08:56 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 3:02:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 1:54:41 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:03:53 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
On 22 Jun 2014, at 6:33 am, John Clark wrote:
A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have
sufficient patience,
Interestingly, it
Kim - we spoke about this luv, I assumed all was good. However, I have just
noticed a little ticky box about original authorwhich I am duly
unticking.
I hope this helps...but if things are as bad as you illustrate, perhaps
half a torture is still a torture too much by 'alf, as they say.
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 4:50:24 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Kim - we spoke about this luv, I assumed all was good. However, I have
just noticed a little ticky box about original authorwhich I am duly
unticking.
I hope this helps...but if things are as bad as you illustrate,
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 5:04:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 4:50:24 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Kim - we spoke about this luv, I assumed all was good. However, I have
just noticed a little ticky box about original authorwhich I am duly
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:31:26 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:55:18 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
it
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk.
No problem.
The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious,
always show up
it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to this
later with the rest, cheer.
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to
this later with the rest, cheer.
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:55:18 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to
this
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:00:03 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
PS I must say I fin3 an odd place to attempt to refute comp. Presumably
you've accepted the original assumptions and the first two steps. Most
people either disagree with the original assumption(s), or go for the MGA
(i.e. the
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 19 June 2014 02:01, jr...@trexenterprises.com javascript: wrote:
My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general
relativity theories is faulty.
In what way is it faulty? SR is based on the principle that
On Monday, June 16, 2014 5:49:55 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:55:42 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
So, in that paragraph I was summing up that:
In making your argument that the current problem of
On Monday, June 16, 2014 1:49:08 AM UTC+great feat saying that one is
anti-war, when they claimed is merely, anti-American military. This is
clear today, it was clear three decades ago, when anti-war protesters,
protested only against Pershing missiles in west Europe, and then years
before
On Monday, June 16, 2014 7:53:07 PM UTC+1, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
1. 9-11 in the US answered all questions regarding the Islamists as fair
as I am concerned.
2. The applied standard for patriotism is doing actions that help the US
survive long enough until the genuine AI is achieved,
On Monday, June 16, 2014 7:18:14 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 16, 2014 5:49:55 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:55:42 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
So, in that paragraph I was
On Monday, June 16, 2014 3:29:43 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Kim Jones kimj...@ozemail.com.au
javascript: wrote:
What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well
understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:55:42 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
So, in that paragraph I was summing up that:
In making your argument that the current problem of intelligence was
equal between computers and humans:
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 5:34:10 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:43 AM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote
A lot is understood about intelligence in humans
Almost nothing is understood about intelligence in humans, otherwise we
could double our IQ...
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 3:10:14 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:29:04AM +1000, Kim Jones wrote:
...
Real thinking involves all four wheels of the car on the ground. An
argument style of thinking only has three wheels on the ground. The missing
fourth
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 7:37:25 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
On 6/14/2014 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If there were a reason why a primitive matter was needed (to select and
incarnate
consciousness), there would be number X and Nu which would emulate
validly Brunos and
Davids
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 11:25:49 AM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:32 PM, John Mikes jam...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
Telmo:
I am a multilinguist (similar to you I suppose) and consider the word
'democracy' as the rule Cratos of DEMOS. the totality of
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 4:14:37 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Kim Jones kimj...@ozemail.com.au
javascript: wrote:
On the other hand there is no harder job in the world than being a
intelligence theorist, but at least if you happen to stumble upon the
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 4:41:21 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 4:14:37 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Kim Jones kimj...@ozemail.com.au
wrote:
On the other hand there is no harder job in the world than being a
intelligence
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 5:16:22 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:41 AM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
What you seem to be doing John, is trying to make a position that
something is equal across distinct domains (like computers and humans)
Yes, that is
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 5:03:28 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 10:39 AM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
John. You have just mentioned I.Q. which is a specific kind of measure.
Would you be willing to clarify where you stand on the science behind I.Q.?
I was
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 11:37:42 PM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 08:02:51AM -0700, ghi...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Your question may be coincidental, but it's pretty hard not to think
there
is some connection with road crash taking place in what was
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:55:42 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
So, in that paragraph I was summing up that:
In making your argument that the current problem of intelligence was
equal between computers and humans:
On Friday, June 13, 2014 5:54:01 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with our
current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such 'tests'.
If
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 11:43:47 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, June 13, 2014 5:54:01 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com wrote:
The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with our
current conception
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 3:31:12 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 02:22:56PM +1200, LizR wrote:
Oh, OK, obviously I was misinformed. I will smack Charles' bottom later.
On 14 June 2014 14:27, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
javascript: wrote:
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 4:41:45 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
On 6/13/2014 6:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
javascript: wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong,
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 12:19:16 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 4:41:45 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
On 6/13/2014 6:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 3:54:15 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
On 14 Jun 2014, at 1:20 am, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
when you never read anything I say (and have *never* responded directly
explicitly to anything I say).
I don't think you can get away with that. That reeks
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 12:13:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 3:31:12 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 02:22:56PM +1200, LizR wrote:
Oh, OK, obviously I was misinformed. I will smack Charles' bottom
later.
On 14 June
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 3:54:15 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
On 14 Jun 2014, at 1:20 am, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
when you never read anything I say (and have *never* responded directly
explicitly to anything I say).
I don't think you can get away with that. That reeks
On Thursday, June 12, 2014 5:54:41 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jun 2014, at 01:48, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Monday, June 9, 2014 2:20:26 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
In the Is Conscious Computable? and Suicide Words God and Ideas
threads there is considerable
On Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:20:16 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
If the TT has been watered down, then the first question for me would be
doesn't this logically pre-assume a set of explicit standards existed in
the first
On Monday, June 9, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
The TT has been so watered down that it doesn't prove anything except that
a glorified version of ELIZA can fool some of the people some of the time.
If the TT has been watered down, then the first question for me would be
doesn't
On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:22:35 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 9, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
The TT has been so watered down that it doesn't prove anything except
that a glorified version of ELIZA can fool some of the people some of the
time.
If the
On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:30:34 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:22:35 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 9, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
The TT has been so watered down that it doesn't prove anything except
that a glorified
On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 3:40:49 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:39 PM, John Mikes jam...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
Are 'angels' rational?
I don't know but I do know that God is real, unless declared an integer.
was the big bang the 'eye of the needle'
On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 3:54:04 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:12:40PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/10/2014 5:22 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
In answer to Bruno's question, indeed the ability to influence one's
subjective probability in this was will
On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 10:02:36 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 3:54:04 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:12:40PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/10/2014 5:22 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
In answer to Bruno's question, indeed
On Monday, June 9, 2014 2:20:26 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
In the Is Conscious Computable? and Suicide Words God and Ideas threads
there is considerable overlap of discussion of primitive materialism.
This is the place where the Neoplatonists and the Aristotelians get to slug
it out, so to
On Sunday, June 8, 2014 4:41:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
Oops. I meant to say more but hit a wrong key and somehow sent that above
one-liner. And there's no way to edit your posts...oh well, to continue...
On 8 June 2014 10:08, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
But...the truth is no
On Sunday, June 8, 2014 4:41:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
Oops. I meant to say more but hit a wrong key and somehow sent that above
one-liner. And there's no way to edit your posts...oh well, to continue...
On 8 June 2014 10:08, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
But...the truth is no
On Sunday, June 8, 2014 9:13:28 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2014, at 00:08, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:49:30 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:33:28 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Jun 2014, at
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:49:30 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:33:28 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Jun 2014, at 02:33, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:48:10 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My theory is comp. I just make it
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:18:57 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
He's released his first theory in the constructor theoretic framework. I
hope people will read it and say what they think...cos I probably can't
understand it.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5563
Well I got round to
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:33:28 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Jun 2014, at 02:33, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:48:10 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My theory is comp. I just make it precise, by 1) Church thesis (en the
amount of logic and
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 10:39:22 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
After his chapter on beauty in BOI I have kind of lost faith in DD.
For me as well, sadly.
But he's in a chapter of his life now, potentially. He faces into the
wind once again, tot his head down and delivered some hard work.
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:48:10 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Jun 2014, at 05:14, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 3:23:25 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 2, 2014 4:20:16 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jun 2014, at 18:22,
so I offered a test event tailored to a specific and probably fairly
central to most others, charge relating to my positioning with Bruno in not
responding to all or most counter arguments and objections or criticisms of
something I have actually or effectively done.
I constructed a basic
of knowledge, or if we are in a simulation (that
might depends on the way the comp-QL is violated).
The fact in dispute with ghibbsa is that I am giving a precise way to
test comp (with nuance due to the vague character of test applied to
reality) when translated in arithmetic. How to interpret
On Monday, June 2, 2014 4:20:16 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jun 2014, at 18:22, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
There was nothing devious about the Salvia posting. I actually pasted the
key
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 3:23:25 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 2, 2014 4:20:16 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Jun 2014, at 18:22, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
There was nothing
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:35:06 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 29 May 2014 15:33, Samiya Illias samiya...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:So, my question to you is this: do you condemn these actions? If so,
do you claim that they stem from a misunderstanding of the Quran?
I am a Muslim. I
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 6:16:01 AM UTC+1, Samiya wrote:
On 29-May-2014, at 12:07 am, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:
wrote:
On 5/28/2014 9:50 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:
You assume that Islam is unethical. Quranic teachings are based on
beautiful moral principles and enjoin
He's released his first theory in the constructor theoretic framework. I
hope people will read it and say what they think...cos I probably can't
understand it.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5563
article:
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:31:05 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
Reading on, it looks like this may be a form of computationalism, not of
the Bruno type but more of the Edgar Owen variety - using constructors
instead of information processors.
(I wonder if there is an absolute time in which
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:26:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
According to constructor theory, the most fundamental components of
reality are entities—“constructors”—that perform particular tasks,
accompanied by a set of laws that define which tasks are actually possible
for a constructor to
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:40:39 PM UTC+1, yanniru wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
On May 29, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:45 PM,
On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
javascript: wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 08:15:30PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 May 2014, at 03:24, LizR wrote:
As far as I
On Sunday, June 1, 2014 10:43:14 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 2 June 2014 03:50, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:40:39 PM UTC+1, yanniru wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 29, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Richard
On Monday, June 2, 2014 1:06:21 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 1, 2014 10:43:14 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 2 June 2014 03:50, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:40:39 PM UTC+1, yanniru wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jason Resch
On Monday, June 2, 2014 1:28:15 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, June 2, 2014 1:06:21 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, June 1, 2014 10:43:14 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 2 June 2014 03:50, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:40:39 PM UTC+1,
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 7:43:13 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Nice post!
Interesting, and indeed very reasonable with comp, in its expectable
natural realizations. I agree on points on salvia too, except that salvia's
reports witness extreme asymmetrical phenomena, which suggests
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 8:47:00 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
On 29 May 2014, at 4:58 pm, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the game,
and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement should not
just be based
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:46:05 PM UTC+1, John Ross wrote:
Thank you, whoever it was that wrote the long paragraph. It reminds me of
the only lawyer joke that I can remember. “Why do they bury Lawyers 8 feet
deep.” “Because down deep they are not too bad.”
I did learn the Law of
- they were more likely to believe they were in an environment
completely different from the physical space they were actually in -
sounds familiar
- they often believed to be interacting with beings such as
hallucinated dead people, aliens, fairies or mythical creatures
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:48:25 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:50 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
On 26 May 2014 23:31, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com javascript:
wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR liz...@gmail.com
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 3:13:44 AM UTC+1, Stephen Paul King wrote:
To detect someone with Down's syndrome, sequence data is completely
useless. Please elaborate! I do know of other ways that data can be
organized...all
I was actually quoting someone else the. But the confusion is my
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 4:53:27 PM UTC+1, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-05-28 17:45 GMT+02:00 ghi...@gmail.com javascript::
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 3:13:44 AM UTC+1, Stephen Paul King wrote:
To detect someone with Down's syndrome, sequence data is completely
useless. Please
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:27:24 AM UTC+1, cdemorsella wrote:
*From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:
everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *LizR
*Sent:* Monday, May 26, 2014 5:41 PM
*To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
*Subject:* Re: So,
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:32:07 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
On 5/26/2014 4:24 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
*From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [
mailto:ever...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *LizR
*Sent:* Monday, May 26, 2014 4:00 PM
On Monday, May 26, 2014 12:45:50 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 10:02:37AM -0700, ghi...@gmail.com
javascript:wrote:
qualify for forgiving :O). I mean.I don't know about you but I agree
with Russel Standish's moderation philosophy on this list...or how it
On Monday, May 26, 2014 8:19:01 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 May 2014, at 19:02, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014 6:46:47 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 May 2014, at 15:52, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:12:59 AM
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:13:38 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, May 26, 2014 8:19:01 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 May 2014, at 19:02, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014 6:46:47 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 May 2014, at 15:52,
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:04:34 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 28 May 2014 11:55, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
the sponge point seems fair, but hybridization is misconstrued in popular
knowledge. In scientific terms the best theory of human origins by a mile,
is a hyrbidization
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:19:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:04:34 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 28 May 2014 11:55, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
the sponge point seems fair, but hybridization is misconstrued in
popular knowledge. In scientific terms the
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:26:32 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
I'm pretty sure I already read a very long article on this subject... I
can't recall all the evidence though.
well it's not good enough liz.. you must love and worship the ape/pig
theory as I do. come, let us kneel together and
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:24:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to segue
into a theory of physics. To disprove it, one merely needs to show that
either his premises or his argument is wrong...
I don't agree with you about that, but
On Saturday, May 24, 2014 11:53:44 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
Well, this is ironic(al)...
:-)
Is the bottom axis weight? Speaking of, guess what, without having run for
months I ran 10km for charity today, and 'ardly broke a sweat :o) Daughter
did much better mind you...she's getting
On Saturday, May 24, 2014 5:47:47 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
Actually, the below quoted text I was responding to was by Bruno.
Hi Kim - you might have been responding to me there actually. Either way
though...I will certainly reply to your post in the next few days and hope
you'll not
On Sunday, May 25, 2014 1:43:49 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
On 25 May 2014, at 4:23 am, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:
wrote:
On 24 May 2014, at 06:47, Kim Jones wrote:
Actually, the below quoted text I was responding to was by Bruno.
(OK, just to be clear the quote was
On Sunday, May 25, 2014 4:32:47 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript:
wrote:
On 25 May 2014, at 02:43, Kim Jones wrote:
On 25 May 2014, at 4:23 am, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:
wrote:
On
On Sunday, May 25, 2014 12:43:33 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 25 May 2014 02:44, John Clark johnk...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
And you think rusty high school algebra is all you need to revolutionize
physics and win a Nobel Prize. Does anyone around here STILL think John
Ross is not a
On Friday, May 23, 2014 6:46:47 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 May 2014, at 15:52, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:12:59 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 May 2014, at 22:02, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
-Original
On Friday, May 23, 2014 12:34:27 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 22 May 2014 23:48, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
hmm..yeah you're right...ironical might not be the word.
True, it's usually just ironic.
nothing ironic about that
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
On Friday, May 23, 2014 12:29:35 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014 12:34:27 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 22 May 2014 23:48, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
hmm..yeah you're right...ironical might not be the word.
True, it's usually just ironic.
nothing ironic about
On Friday, May 23, 2014 9:03:00 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
On 22 May 2014, at 11:57 pm, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript:
wrote:
Can you at least confirm that you pretend to have a refutation of comp
The word 'pretend' here is a false friend. Bruno is assuming that this
On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:00:26 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014 9:03:00 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
On 22 May 2014, at 11:57 pm, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Can you at least confirm that you pretend to have a refutation of comp
The word 'pretend'
On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:22:34 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:00:26 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014 9:03:00 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
On 22 May 2014, at 11:57 pm, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Can you at least
1 - 100 of 430 matches
Mail list logo
