On 20 February 2014 22:00, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm still unsure whether you don't grasp the relevance of my point, or are
consciously or unconsciously side-stepping it. It's really peculiar.
It's peculiar because you are the one who doesn't understand my point. I
On Friday, February 21, 2014 10:28:47 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 20 February 2014 22:00, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I'm still unsure whether you don't grasp the relevance of my point, or are
consciously or unconsciously side-stepping it. It's really
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 8:02:40 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 18 February 2014 17:14, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Moreover, that very failure must be strikingly apparent to the functional
actors themselves.
Why do you think that isn't the pathetic
On 19 February 2014 14:17, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You're talking about the special case of human experience, human bodies,
etc. I'm talking about the ontology of the nature of any possible awareness
in any possible universe.
I'm not really sure what distinction you're
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:28:18 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 February 2014 14:17, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You're talking about the special case of human experience, human bodies,
etc. I'm talking about the ontology of the nature of any possible
On 19 February 2014 17:15, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:28:18 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 February 2014 14:17, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
You're talking about the special case of human experience, human bodies,
etc. I'm
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:37:43 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 February 2014 17:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:28:18 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 19 February 2014 14:17, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 February 2014 03:42, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
I have over and over. If I count my fingers, I get a number five. That
number cannot reproduce the individual fingers and thumb of my hand. It's
just a metaphor for a certain set of qualities associated with feeling
On 18 February 2014 17:14, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Moreover, that very failure must be strikingly apparent to the functional
actors themselves.
Why do you think that isn't the pathetic fallacy though?
Quite simply because the whole argument is based on the premise that
On 16 Feb 2014, at 20:09, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 19:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Why not being agnostic, especially that you have admitted not having
studied computer science.
Why being negative on something that you ignore?
Because he understands that comp
On 17 February 2014 03:19, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:07:06 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 00:29, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
You don't suggest that I can't understand comp, but you suggest that I am
impervious
On Monday, February 17, 2014 7:29:48 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 03:19, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:07:06 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 00:29, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
You
On 17 February 2014 21:45, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
You misunderstood my meaning. I said that I don't believe that you
cannot *possibly* understand comp, assuming you ever give it proper
consideration, but I see no evidence that *in fact* you have ever
understood
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
A quick video that can shed some light on the inadequacy of bottom-up
models.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
On 16 Feb 2014, at 18:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
A quick video that can shed some light on the inadequacy of bottom-
up models.
Nice video, Craig.
But don't make it into an opportunist argument against comp, as comp
explains why 3p bottom-up
On 16 February 2014 19:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Why not being agnostic, especially that you have admitted not having
studied computer science.
Why being negative on something that you ignore?
Because he understands that comp cannot possibly be true.
David
--
You received
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:09:13 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 16 February 2014 19:05, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be
javascript:wrote:
Why not being agnostic, especially that you have admitted not having
studied computer science.
Why being negative on something that you ignore?
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:05:09 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Feb 2014, at 18:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
A quick video that can shed some light on the inadequacy of bottom-up
models.
Nice video, Craig.
But don't make it into an
When have I ever suggested that? I don't suppose any such thing. I would
however say that you have so far been impervious to reasoned argument with
respect to comp, on the sole apparent premise that your prior
understanding suffices to trump reason itself.
David
On 16 Feb 2014 21:38, Craig
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:47:46 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
When have I ever suggested that? I don't suppose any such thing. I would
however say that you have so far been impervious to reasoned argument with
respect to comp, on the sole apparent premise that your prior
On 17 February 2014 00:29, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You don't suggest that I can't understand comp, but you suggest that I am
impervious to reasoned argument about it...why would that be the case if I
understood comp as you seem to think it deserves to be understood?
You
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:07:06 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 17 February 2014 00:29, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You don't suggest that I can't understand comp, but you suggest that I am
impervious to reasoned argument about it...why would that be the case
22 matches
Mail list logo
