On 19 Jan 2012, at 18:03, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
And are non computable real numbers fundamental?
If they can not be derived from anything else, and they can not be,
then they must be fundamental.
If they exist, or need
On 17 Jan 2012, at 19:47, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You don't need to assume them. They already exists at the natural
numbers' epistemological level.
Then in addition to the natural numbers the non computable numbers
are fundamental
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But in computability theory we have only natural numbers. A real number
like PI or e is modeled by a total computable function from N to N.
Yes, but real numbers like PI or e are very much the exception, they are
rare,
On 17 Jan 2012, at 17:26, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
But in computability theory we have only natural numbers. A real
number like PI or e is modeled by a total computable function from N
to N.
Yes, but real numbers like
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You don't need to assume them. They already exists at the natural numbers'
epistemological level.
Then in addition to the natural numbers the non computable numbers are
fundamental too.
Just rememeber that when I use the term
On 14 Jan 2012, at 19:00, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
OK, but today we avoid the expression computable number.
Why? Seems to me that quite a large number of people still use the
term. A computable number is a real number that can be
On 15 Jan 2012, at 09:13, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
What about the Turing test for a person in that state to check if he
still has consciousness?
As I said in another post, the very idea of the Turing test consists
in avoiding completely the notion of consciousness.
I do disagree with Turing
On 15 Jan 2012, at 18:14, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
How would you generalize the Turing Test for consciousness?
By doing the exact same thing we do when we evaluate our fellow
human beings, assume that there is a
On 14.01.2012 19:56 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 1/14/2012 1:15 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 14.01.2012 18:12 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
There is no way consciousness can have a direct Darwinian
advantage
so it must be a
On 14 January 2012 18:56, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
But the Turing Test is a bit of an oxymoron because it
is impossible to prove the existence of something that is solely 1p. There
is no 3p of consciousness.
I agree, and in a sense this implies the futility of all attempts
Hi David,
On 1/15/2012 9:47 AM, David Nyman wrote:
On 14 January 2012 18:56, Stephen P. Kingstephe...@charter.net wrote:
But the Turing Test is a bit of an oxymoron because it
is impossible to prove the existence of something that is solely 1p. There
is no 3p of consciousness.
I agree, and
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
How would you generalize the Turing Test for consciousness?
By doing the exact same thing we do when we evaluate our fellow human
beings, assume that there is a direct link between intelligent behavior and
On 15 January 2012 16:36, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
My questions here go back to this idea of realities independent of the
1p context in which they manifest. This independence seems to be the same
kind of independence that I am wrestling with in my debate with Bruno. Is
it
On 15 January 2012 17:14, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
How would you generalize the Turing Test for consciousness?
By doing the exact same thing we do when we evaluate our fellow human
beings, assume that there is a direct link between intelligent behavior and
consciousness.
I
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
If consciousness has a survival value [...]
Then consciousness must change behavior and the Turing Test works for
consciousness as well as intelligence .
then surely omniscience, teleportation, or the ability to turn
On Jan 15, 1:51 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
If consciousness has a survival value [...]
Then consciousness must change behavior and the Turing Test works for
consciousness as well as intelligence .
On 14.01.2012 03:06 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 2:50 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.01.2012 22:36 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 12:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
By the way in the Gray's book the term intelligence is not even
in the index. This was the biggest
On 13 Jan 2012, at 17:30, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I am not entirely sure what you mean by computable numbers (I
guess you mean function).
A computable number is a number that can be approximated by a
computable function, and a
On 1/14/2012 12:08 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 14.01.2012 03:06 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 2:50 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.01.2012 22:36 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 12:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
By the way in the Gray's book the term intelligence
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
There is no way consciousness can have a direct Darwinian advantage
so it must be a byproduct of something that does have that virtue, and the
obvious candidate is intelligence.\
That's not so clear since we don't know exactly
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
OK, but today we avoid the expression computable number.
Why? Seems to me that quite a large number of people still use the term. A
computable number is a real number that can be computed to any finite
amount of digits by a Turing
On 14.01.2012 17:56 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/14/2012 12:08 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 14.01.2012 03:06 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 2:50 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.01.2012 22:36 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 12:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
By
On 14.01.2012 18:12 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
There is no way consciousness can have a direct Darwinian
advantage
so it must be a byproduct of something that does have that virtue,
and the obvious candidate is intelligence.\
On 1/14/2012 1:15 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 14.01.2012 18:12 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
There is no way consciousness can have a direct Darwinian
advantage
so it must be a byproduct of something that does have that virtue,
and
On 1/13/2012 8:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
We can even ascribe it [consciousness] a role (explaining its Darwinian
advantage)
There is no way consciousness can have a direct Darwinian advantage so it must be a
byproduct of something that does have that virtue, and the obvious candidate is
On 13.01.2012 19:20 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 8:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
We can even ascribe it [consciousness] a role (explaining its
Darwinian advantage)
There is no way consciousness can have a direct Darwinian advantage
so it must be a byproduct of something that does
On Jan 13, 3:54 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 13.01.2012 19:20 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 8:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
We can even ascribe it [consciousness] a role (explaining its
Darwinian advantage)
There is no way consciousness can have a direct
On 13.01.2012 22:39 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Jan 13, 3:54 pm, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 13.01.2012 19:20 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 8:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
We can even ascribe it [consciousness] a role (explaining
its
Darwinian
On 13.01.2012 22:36 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 12:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.01.2012 19:20 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 8:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
We can even ascribe it [consciousness] a role (explaining
its
Darwinian advantage)
There is no way
On 1/13/2012 2:50 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.01.2012 22:36 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 12:54 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.01.2012 19:20 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 8:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
We can even ascribe it [consciousness] a role (explaining
its
On Jan 13, 5:35 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 13.01.2012 22:39 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Jan 13, 3:54 pm, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 13.01.2012 19:20 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/13/2012 8:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
We can even
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
That's the default occidental view.
You've said something like that before and I get the distinct impression
that you think occidental people should be ashamed of themselves. I don't.
if it was just genetics, and genetics were
On 11 Jan 2012, at 18:07, acw wrote:
On 1/10/2012 17:48, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jan 2012, at 12:58, acw wrote:
On 1/10/2012 12:03, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jan 2012, at 19:36, acw wrote:
To put it more simply: if Church Turing Thesis(CTT) is correct,
mathematics is the same for
On 12 Jan 2012, at 06:24, John Clark wrote:
Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
however we don't know that there is a explanation for everything,
some things might be fundamental.
In the case of elementary arithmetic, we can even explain why we
cannot explain it by something more
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you know the logic behind something then you understand it and if
you understand it you know the logic behind it.
That's a false assumption. I can understand something whether or not
it has logic behind it.
You
On Jan 12, 4:18 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you know the logic behind something then you understand it and if
you understand it you know the logic behind it.
That's a false assumption. I can
On 1/10/2012 17:48, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jan 2012, at 12:58, acw wrote:
On 1/10/2012 12:03, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jan 2012, at 19:36, acw wrote:
To put it more simply: if Church Turing Thesis(CTT) is correct,
mathematics is the same for any system or being you can imagine.
On Jan 11, 12:24 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
There is more to understanding than logic.
If you know the logic behind something then you understand it and if you
understand it you know the logic behind
Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
however we don't know that there is a explanation for everything,
some things might be fundamental.
In the case of elementary arithmetic, we can even explain why we
cannot explain it by something more fundamental. There are logical
reason for
On 09 Jan 2012, at 19:36, acw wrote:
On 1/9/2012 19:54, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 9, 12:00 pm, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Jan 2012, at 14:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 9, 6:06 am, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I agree with your general reply to Craig,
On 1/10/2012 12:03, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jan 2012, at 19:36, acw wrote:
On 1/9/2012 19:54, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 9, 12:00 pm, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Jan 2012, at 14:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 9, 6:06 am, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I
On Jan 10, 12:40 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
No free will = no hunger. No need for it. No mechanism for it. No logic to
it.
Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII sequence free will means.
The old 'stick your fingers in your ears and
On 10 Jan 2012, at 12:58, acw wrote:
On 1/10/2012 12:03, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Jan 2012, at 19:36, acw wrote:
To put it more simply: if Church Turing Thesis(CTT) is correct,
mathematics is the same for any system or being you can imagine.
I am not sure why. Sigma_1 arithmetic
On 1/10/2012 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In a way, that strong form of CT might already be false with comp, only in the 1p sense
as you get a free random oracle as well as always staying consistent(and 'alive'), but
it's not false in the 3p view...
Yes. Comp makes physics a first person
On 1/10/2012 12:48 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2012 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In a way, that strong form of CT might already be false with comp,
only in the 1p sense as you get a free random oracle as well as
always staying consistent(and 'alive'), but it's not false in the 3p
view...
On 10 Jan 2012, at 18:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2012 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In a way, that strong form of CT might already be false with comp,
only in the 1p sense as you get a free random oracle as well as
always staying consistent(and 'alive'), but it's not false in the
3p
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
There is more to understanding than logic.
If you know the logic behind something then you understand it and if you
understand it you know the logic behind it.
It says very clearly that the changes are not random -
On Dec 22 2011, 12:18 pm, alexalex alexmka...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hello, Everythinglisters!
The below text is a philosophical essay on what qualia may represent.
I doubt you'll manage to finish reading it (it's kind of long, and
translated from anoter language), but if you do I'll be happy to
On 09 Jan 2012, at 06:56, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
But naturalism want to explain things by reducing it to nature or
natural law,
If you want to explain X you say that X exists because of Y. It's
true that Y can be
On Jan 9, 6:06 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I agree with your general reply to Craig, but I disagree that
computations are physical. That's the revisionist conception of
computation, defended by Deustch, Landauer, etc. Computations have
been discovered by mathematicians when
On 09 Jan 2012, at 14:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 9, 6:06 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I agree with your general reply to Craig, but I disagree that
computations are physical. That's the revisionist conception of
computation, defended by Deustch, Landauer, etc.
On Jan 9, 12:00 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Jan 2012, at 14:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 9, 6:06 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I agree with your general reply to Craig, but I disagree that
computations are physical. That's the revisionist conception
On 1/9/2012 19:54, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 9, 12:00 pm, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Jan 2012, at 14:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 9, 6:06 am, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I agree with your general reply to Craig, but I disagree that
computations are
On Jan 9, 12:56 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But naturalism want to explain things by reducing it to nature or natural
law,
If you want to explain X you say that X exists because of Y. It's true that
Y can
Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
No free will = no hunger. No need for it. No mechanism for it. No logic to
it.
Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII sequence free will means.
That was my point. Knowing how to eat does not require logic or induction.
But your question was Is it
On 08 Jan 2012, at 06:06, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You confuse naturalism (nature exists
I hope we don't have to debate if nature exists or not.
Of course, nature exists (very plausibly).
But naturalism want to explain things by
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
I don't see any logic or induction in the assertion that the only
possible epistemological sources for Homo sapiens must be logic or
induction.
What other pathway to knowledge do you propose? Well OK there is direct
On 8 January 2012 04:57, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes Turing was persecuted but his unjust treatment was caused by his privet
life and had nothing to do with his scientific ideas.
Interesting...I didn't know that Turing was persecuted for his
unpopular views about hedging.
David
On Jan 8, 12:03 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
I don't see any logic or induction in the assertion that the only
possible epistemological sources for Homo sapiens must be logic or
induction.
What other
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But naturalism want to explain things by reducing it to nature or natural
law,
If you want to explain X you say that X exists because of Y. It's true that
Y can be nothing and thus the existence of X is random, but let's
On 06.01.2012 20:44 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/6/2012 10:14 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Bruno,
I have recently finished listening Prof Hoenen's Theorien der
Wahrheit where he has also reviewed Feyerabend's Science in a Free
Society. Today I wanted to learn more about that book and have
On 06.01.2012 23:11 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
In fact I do agree often with John Clark, but then he exaggerates
also very often the point.
I've told you a million times I never exaggerate.
The church was asking
On 06.01.2012 22:28 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
This does not mean that everybody has to agree with him
[Feyerabend] but a statement about an idiot looks exaggerated.
If one can not use the word idiot to refer to
On 06 Jan 2012, at 23:11, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
In fact I do agree often with John Clark, but then he exaggerates
also very often the point.
I've told you a million times I never exaggerate.
The church was asking
Hi Evgenii,
On 06 Jan 2012, at 19:14, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Bruno,
I have recently finished listening Prof Hoenen's Theorien der
Wahrheit where he has also reviewed Feyerabend's Science in a Free
Society. Today I wanted to learn more about that book and have found
in Internet
Paul
I took a look, and I really think that Feyerabend confuses science
and science-done-by-weak-human in search of food, position and
power.
I would agree in a sense that Feyerabend states that in the human
society there is science-done-by-weak-human in search of food, position
and power only.
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
You are free to express your opinion and I am free to express mine. Don't
you agree?
Yes, and Feyerabend should be free to say anything that pops into his head
no matter how silly, and I should be free to call him an
Feyerabend Wrote:
Do not be misled by the fact that today hardly anyone gets killed for
joining a scientific heresy. This has nothing to do with science. It has
something to do with the general quality of our civilization. Heretics in
science are still made to suffer from the most severe
On 07.01.2012 17:21 John Clark said the following:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
You are free to express your opinion and I am free to express
mine. Don't
you agree?
Yes, and Feyerabend should be free to say anything that pops into his
head no
On 07.01.2012 18:15 John Clark said the following:
Feyerabend Wrote:
Do not be misled by the fact that today hardly anyone gets killed
for joining a scientific heresy. This has nothing to do with
science. It has something to do with the general quality of our
civilization. Heretics in science
On 1/7/2012 12:59 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 23:11 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
In fact I do agree often with John Clark, but then he exaggerates
also very often the point.
I've told you a million times I
On 1/7/2012 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You confuse naturalism (nature exists and is fundamental/primitive) and rationalism
(things works by and for a reason).
The first is the main axiom of Aristotle theology, the second defines the general
scientific attitude.
Today we know that they oppose
On 1/7/2012 10:16 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.01.2012 18:15 John Clark said the following:
Feyerabend Wrote:
Do not be misled by the fact that today hardly anyone gets killed
for joining a scientific heresy. This has nothing to do with
science. It has something to do with the general
On 07 Jan 2012, at 21:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/7/2012 2:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You confuse naturalism (nature exists and is fundamental/primitive)
and rationalism (things works by and for a reason).
The first is the main axiom of Aristotle theology, the second
defines the general
On 07 Jan 2012, at 13:13, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I took a look, and I really think that Feyerabend confuses science
and science-done-by-weak-human in search of food, position and
power.
I would agree in a sense that Feyerabend states that in the human
society there is
From Wikipedia:
Turing's homosexuality resulted in a criminal prosecution in 1952, when
homosexual acts were still illegal in the United Kingdom. He accepted
treatment with female hormones (chemical castration) as an alternative to
prison. He died in 1954, just over two weeks before his 42nd
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You confuse naturalism (nature exists
I hope we don't have to debate if nature exists or not.
and is fundamental/primitive)
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to dislike naturalism so you think
there is no such thing as a
On 05.01.2012 06:29 John Clark said the following:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Craig
Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Sure, our belief in simulations can make them seem quite realistic
to us. That doesn't make them real though.
And so simulators join a long long long list of things
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
If to talk about Galileo, then it would also good to remember Feyerabend
(for example Against method). Feyerabend has studied the way Galileo has
made science a lot and his conclusion:
The church at the time of Galileo was much more
On 06.01.2012 17:08 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
If to talk about Galileo, then it would also good to remember
Feyerabend
(for example Against method). Feyerabend has studied the way
Galileo has made science a lot and his
On 06 Jan 2012, at 17:54, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 17:08 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
If to talk about Galileo, then it would also good to remember
Feyerabend
(for example Against method). Feyerabend has studied the
Bruno,
I have recently finished listening Prof Hoenen's Theorien der Wahrheit
where he has also reviewed Feyerabend's Science in a Free Society. Today
I wanted to learn more about that book and have found in Internet
Paul Feyerabend, 1975
How To Defend Society Against Science
On 1/6/2012 1:23 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 05.01.2012 06:29 John Clark said the following:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Craig
Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Sure, our belief in simulations can make them seem quite realistic
to us. That doesn't make them real though.
And so
On 1/6/2012 8:54 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 17:08 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
If to talk about Galileo, then it would also good to remember
Feyerabend
(for example Against method). Feyerabend has studied the way
On 06.01.2012 20:13 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/6/2012 8:54 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 17:08 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
...
This statement contradict to a normal scientific world view but it
is based on
On 1/6/2012 11:26 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 20:13 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/6/2012 8:54 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 17:08 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
...
This statement contradict to a normal
On 1/6/2012 10:14 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Bruno,
I have recently finished listening Prof Hoenen's Theorien der Wahrheit where he has also
reviewed Feyerabend's Science in a Free Society. Today I wanted to learn more about that
book and have found in Internet
Paul Feyerabend, 1975
How To
On 06.01.2012 20:35 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/6/2012 11:26 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 20:13 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/6/2012 8:54 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 17:08 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
On 1/6/2012 12:07 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 20:35 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/6/2012 11:26 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 20:13 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/6/2012 8:54 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.01.2012 17:08 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan
On 06.01.2012 21:15 meekerdb said the following:
On 1/6/2012 12:07 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
I do not know, I cannot exclude that German authorities have some
censorship in Internet (or Google censors its content to Germany)
but when I run Google scholar
http://scholar.google.com/
and
On 1/6/2012 12:37 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Whatever the numbers I'm sure you take my point that the number of
citations has very little to do with the correctness or importance of
an author. Nobody cites Isaac Newton in physics papers anymore.
Brent
Run Isaac Newton in the Google Scholar
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
This does not mean that everybody has to agree with him [Feyerabend] but
a statement about an idiot looks exaggerated.
If one can not use the word idiot to refer to someone who says things
like The church at the time of
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
In fact I do agree often with John Clark, but then he exaggerates also
very often the point.
I've told you a million times I never exaggerate.
The church was asking to Galileo to present his view as a theory or
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Only one reason, we can't make a good enough simulation for that because
we don't have enough INFORMATION.
If our contemporary knowledge of physics is so complete, then that should
be all the information we need.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 3:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But you are right, Feyerabend is no idiot. He is insightful. He knows
that reputation in philosophy is most easily gained by taking a position
contrary to common wisdom.
If Feyerabend believed what he said about Galileo
On Jan 6, 10:33 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Only one reason, we can't make a good enough simulation for that because
we don't have enough INFORMATION.
If our contemporary knowledge of physics is so
On Jan 5, 12:29 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Sure, our belief in simulations can make them seem quite realistic to us.
That doesn't make them real though.
And so simulators join a long long long list
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Sure, our belief in simulations can make them seem quite realistic to us.
That doesn't make them real though.
And so simulators join a long long long list of things that you say are not
real. If X contradicts your
On 1/4/2012 9:29 PM, John Clark wrote:
It's [the brain] nothing like a computer which drops the contents of RAM
as soon
as electricity is cut off
As anyone who has ever used a flash drive could tell you not all RAM acts that
way.
Anyone who's hit their head really hard can tell
On 31 Dec 2011, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/30/2011 12:41 PM, John Clark wrote:
If we found a brain growing in the attic and we had never
seen one before, we would put gloves on and throw it in the trash.
Ah...,well...,OK,but what is your point?
I'm sure it's not Craig's point,
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
