[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 3:33 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this?
Stephen P. King wrote:
Umm, I had no idea that this would be so difficult to understand! I am
claiming
On 9/25/2010 12:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Umm, I had no idea that this would be so difficult to understand! I am
claiming that if there does not exist a means to determine a
difference then no difference can be said to exist. This is just a
restatement of the principle of identity of
On 25 Sep 2010, at 18:06, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 9/25/2010 12:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Umm, I had no idea that this would be so difficult to understand! I
am claiming that if there does not exist a means to determine a
difference then no difference can be said to exist. This is just a
@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this?
Hi Stephen,
The 1004 fallacy is when people argue, generally on vocabulary, by demanding
precision which is actually not relevant with the concerned issue. It come from
a passage of Sylvie and Bruno by Lewis Carroll. Bruno was looking
Hi Stephen,
OK, did you make sense of the idea of representing
Integer with a sort of equivalence class that have members that are
the arithmetic generators or creators or acts that equal examples of
the number? We can think of 1 in the Platonic sense as the class of
on 19.09.2010 01:52 1Z said the following:
On 18 Sep, 19:32, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
on 18.09.2010 19:40 1Z said the following:
On 18 Sep, 17:20, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ruwrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water.
on 18.09.2010 23:35 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 9/18/2010 12:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 21:09 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 9/18/2010 9:20 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference
On 19 Sep, 07:30, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
Well, I thought that reductionism could help an engineer.
I don't think anyone said that
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
On 19 Sep, 07:34, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
on 18.09.2010 23:35 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 9/18/2010 12:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 21:09 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 9/18/2010 9:20 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the
Evgeniy, I may be the one agreeing with your sentence 1Z did not hear so
far. Maybe he is right. Let me try to explain why I am congruent with your
suggestion:
*Reductionism *(as I identify it, - not congruent with the classical
definitions - is the process in which the ongoing conventional
John,
I am not sure if I have a particular position. I am a chemist by
background, well I was doing all the life simulation only.
Actually I am comfortable with reductionism ideas, as many scientist
are. Yet, I do not understand something.
Say chemistry starts that H2 has a single bond, 02
Evgeniy,
thanks for the reply.
With H2o you use all those expressions the millenia-long reductionist
development came up with and modified them according to newer learned
details. (Bond?) You asked What do these terms mean? Chmistry is NOT part
of physics, especially not the polymer branch in
Hi John,
Bruno:
thanks for the I thinkG in your text below - also: I cannot
argue against your negative assessement about atheism - who IMO
require a 'God to deny. You know my shortcomings to equate physics
with other domains of hearsay belief systems, like theology (as
religion
On 1 Sep, 05:18, Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com wrote:
That these rules generate rational beliefs is a leap of faith, and can
neither be refuted nor proven.
apart from noting the survival value of
rationality over irrationality
If the underlying process *didn’t* cause us to present and
On 3 Sep, 09:10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Physicists have a tradition of putting mind and consciousness under
the rug,
Physicists have a tradition of not being psychologists
front of the 'hard consciousness problem', or the mind-body problem.
--
You received this message
on 18.09.2010 01:38 1Z said the following:
On 17 Sep, 18:52, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
on 17.09.2010 14:33 1Z said the following:
On 26 Aug, 17:37, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.comwrote:
...
The next citation by Robert B. Laughlin (Nobel laureate in
physics) could be
On 18 Sep, 16:11, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
on 18.09.2010 01:38 1Z said the following:
On 17 Sep, 18:52, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
on 17.09.2010 14:33 1Z said the following:
On 26 Aug, 17:37, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
...
The next
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference between H, O and H2O is
in chemical bonds in H2O.
such bonds can be considered basic elements of reality, too
I am not sure if I understand your answer. Say we have H2 and O2 at room
On 17 Sep 2010, at 19:52, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 17.09.2010 14:33 1Z said the following:
On 26 Aug, 17:37, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Whatever composite categories we might be tempted to have recourse
to - you know: molecules, cells, bodies, planets, ideas,
On 18 Sep 2010, at 14:34, 1Z wrote:
On 3 Sep, 09:10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Physicists have a tradition of putting mind and consciousness under
the rug,
Physicists have a tradition of not being psychologists
front of the 'hard consciousness problem', or the mind-body
On 18 Sep, 17:20, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference between H, O and H2O is
in chemical bonds in H2O.
such bonds can be considered basic elements of reality, too
I am not sure if I
On 18 Sep, 18:21, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Sep 2010, at 14:34, 1Z wrote:
On 3 Sep, 09:10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Physicists have a tradition of putting mind and consciousness under
the rug,
Physicists have a tradition of not being psychologists
On 18 Sep 2010, at 19:43, 1Z wrote:
On 18 Sep, 18:21, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Sep 2010, at 14:34, 1Z wrote:
On 3 Sep, 09:10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Physicists have a tradition of putting mind and consciousness under
the rug,
Physicists have a
on 18.09.2010 19:02 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 17 Sep 2010, at 19:52, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
This is why attempts to describe free atoms in Newtonian terms
always result in nonsense statements such as their being neither
here nor there but simultaneously everywhere.
IMO, this
on 18.09.2010 19:40 1Z said the following:
On 18 Sep, 17:20, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference between H, O and
H2O is in chemical bonds in H2O.
such bonds can be considered basic
On 9/18/2010 9:20 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference between H, O and H2O is
in chemical bonds in H2O.
such bonds can be considered basic elements of reality, too
I am not sure if I understand your
on 18.09.2010 21:09 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 9/18/2010 9:20 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference between H, O and
H2O is in chemical bonds in H2O.
such bonds can be considered basic elements of
Bruno:
thanks for the I thinkG in your text below - also: I cannot argue
against your negative assessement about atheism - who IMO require a 'God to
deny. You know my shortcomings to equate physics with other domains of *hearsay
belief systems*, like *theology* (as *religion* mainly). What I mean
On 9/18/2010 12:19 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 21:09 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 9/18/2010 9:20 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference between H, O and
H2O is in chemical bonds in H2O.
Friends,
that reminds me of my 1/2 c profession in - more or less - chemistry with a
conclusion that averted the brainwashing received in college (and applied in
my successful RD work as long as it lasted) that the chemical 'formulae' of
compounds describe 'ingredients'.
You mentioned H2O - which
On 18 Sep, 19:32, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
on 18.09.2010 19:40 1Z said the following:
On 18 Sep, 17:20, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
on 18.09.2010 18:08 1Z said the following:
...
By the way, about the water. The difference between H, O and
H2O is in
On 26 Aug, 17:37, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
I should stress, again, I'm not personally committed to this view - it
seems indeed highly problematic - but it is what the recipe says.
Now, just to emphasise the point, when I say it's a hard thing to do
this imaginatively, I mean
On 17 September 2010 13:33, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Compounds aren't postulated as some separate set of entities--they
are just set theoretic constructs put of what does exsit. H2O is not
distinct from the two H's and the O.
That's exactly my point. Think about it.
David
On 26
on 17.09.2010 14:33 1Z said the following:
On 26 Aug, 17:37, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Whatever composite categories we might be tempted to have recourse
to - you know: molecules, cells, bodies, planets, ideas,
explanations, theories, the whole ball of wax - none of
On 17 Sep, 14:10, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 17 September 2010 13:33, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Compounds aren't postulated as some separate set of entities--they
are just set theoretic constructs put of what does exsit. H2O is not
distinct from the two H's and the
On 17 Sep, 18:52, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
on 17.09.2010 14:33 1Z said the following:
On 26 Aug, 17:37, David Nymandavid.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Whatever composite categories we might be tempted to have recourse
to - you know: molecules, cells, bodies, planets,
, September 14, 2010 9:40 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this?
On 12 Sep 2010, at 21:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Bruno,
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Sep 2010, at 21:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
The only
explanation that I can think of for this is that the hope of an impersonal
determinism that obtains from the block-static reality doctrine allows it
adherents to
On 14 Sep 2010, at 17:23, Rex Allen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 12 Sep 2010, at 21:43, Stephen P. King wrote:
The only
explanation that I can think of for this is that the hope of an
impersonal
determinism that obtains from the
Hi Bruno,
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 11:36 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this?
On 11 Sep 2010, at 00:42
On 11 Sep 2010, at 00:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Bruno,
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 11:16 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What's
On 09 Sep 2010, at 14:37, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Bruno,
My thought is to look at the transformation group around which some
property is invariant to act as a generator of the properties of
the, say,
quark.
Good idea. That is related with the importance of group theory and
Hi Bruno,
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 11:16 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this?
On 09 Sep 2010, at 14:37, Stephen
On 08 Sep 2010, at 20:28, Rex Allen wrote:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 9/7/2010 1:48 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Having said this your point does not follow, in the sense that even
if
consciousness supervenes on interactions of
Marchal
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 4:42 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this?
snip
The mystery is solved when you understand that consciousness
(immaterial) is a necessarily existing inference of machines
(immaterial) observing themselves
On 07 Sep 2010, at 23:13, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 9/7/2010 1:48 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 07.09.2010 05:11 Rex Allen said the following:
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Brent Meeker
meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 9/6/2010 6:45 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
...
Put a different way:
Evgeniy,
you may read anything and the contrary of it. We have to make up *our own
mind* for ourselves, I mean: *not to persuade others to accept it*, yet
maybe *include* in our version whatever we find reasonable in all those
(contradictory?) opinions that have been published by smart scientists.
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 9/7/2010 1:48 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Having said this your point does not follow, in the sense that even if
consciousness supervenes on interactions of particles (non mechanism) this
would not prevents
on 07.09.2010 05:11 Rex Allen said the following:
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Brent Meeker
meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 9/6/2010 6:45 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
...
Put a different way:
According to physicalism conscious experience supervenes on quarks
and electrons. Quarks and
On 9/7/2010 1:48 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 07.09.2010 05:11 Rex Allen said the following:
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Brent Meeker
meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 9/6/2010 6:45 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
...
Put a different way:
According to physicalism conscious experience supervenes
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 9/4/2010 5:28 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
That still makes them physicalist theories, not quasi-physicalist. As
long as the mad scientist and his vats/computers are physical.
Does this mad scientist have free will,
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 3:13 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Brent and Rex:
after many many discussions I suffered along - reading utter stupidity,
Ouch!
this
one is a refreshingly reasonable one.
Excellent!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On 9/6/2010 6:45 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 9/4/2010 5:28 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
That still makes them physicalist theories, not quasi-physicalist. As
long as the mad scientist and his vats/computers are
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 9/6/2010 6:45 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
I would say that physicalism is the claim that *all* conscious
experiences are due to the independent existence of some other more
fundamental set of entities (particles, fields,
Brent and Rex:
after many many discussions I suffered along - reading utter stupidity, this
one is a refreshingly reasonable one.
Most assign to so called atheists arguments of 'almost believeing'
superstitionists. I don't call myself 'atheist',
with the name requiring a 'god' to not-believeing
On 9/3/2010 12:49 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Scientifically I think there are possible data
that would count as evidence against physicalism. For example, if persons
reporting out-of-body experiences could actually gain
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
You've made up some just-so stories about how some other quasi-physical
explanation *might* be adopted.
In what way are my proposed explanations quasi-physical instead of
just physical?
You haven't show that they
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
You can always speculate that any
regularity we note is just a false positive that in inevitable in an
infinite universe - but that will convince no one.
Also, I think you're underestimating the extent to which people
On 9/4/2010 12:45 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
You've made up some just-so stories about how some other quasi-physical
explanation *might* be adopted.
In what way are my proposed explanations quasi-physical instead
Dear Brent,
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Brent Meeker
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 7:39 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this?
On 9/4/2010 12:45 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Sep 4
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 9/4/2010 12:45 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
In what way are my proposed explanations quasi-physical instead of
just physical?
Brain-in-vat and the-universe-as-a-computer-simulation are not really
physical theories since
On 9/4/2010 5:28 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Brent Meekermeeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On 9/4/2010 12:45 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
In what way are my proposed explanations quasi-physical instead of
just physical?
Brain-in-vat and
On 02 Sep 2010, at 19:23, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 02.09.2010 17:57 Bruno Marchal said the following:
...
Science is only collection of theories, and statements derive in
those theories, and intepretation rules, and confirmation modus
operandi. Only layman and engineers have to hope that
on 03.09.2010 10:10 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 02 Sep 2010, at 19:23, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 02.09.2010 17:57 Bruno Marchal said the following: ...
Science is only collection of theories, and statements derive in
those theories, and intepretation rules, and confirmation modus
On 03 Sep 2010, at 15:55, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 03.09.2010 10:10 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 02 Sep 2010, at 19:23, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 02.09.2010 17:57 Bruno Marchal said the following: ...
Science is only collection of theories, and statements derive in
those theories,
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:46 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Scientifically I think there are possible data
that would count as evidence against physicalism. For example, if persons
reporting out-of-body experiences could actually gain knowledge not
otherwise available via
on 03.09.2010 06:46 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 9/2/2010 1:32 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Quentin Anciauxallco...@gmail.com
wrote:
...
Of course it is *logically* possible that any new data could be
consistent with physicalism - but then logical
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
In some case the metatheory can itself be an object of the theory. For
example zoologists are animal (but botanist are not plant). Since Gödel we
know that the theory Peano Arithmetic can be studied in Peano
arithmetic.
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 Sep 2010, at 04:15, Rex Allen wrote:
Accidentalism, and...what else? Refraining from metaphysical
speculation altogether?
That is the good idea!
Easier said than done! I've sworn it off 4 times this year...but
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
I did read your preceeding message. And what I got out of it is that
if you consistently apply your evaluative criteria, you should
conclude that physicalism, platonism, deism, theism, arithmetical
realism and all
2010/9/2 Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
I did read your preceeding message. And what I got out of it is that
if you consistently apply your evaluative criteria, you should
conclude that physicalism, platonism,
On 1 September 2010 21:51, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
In
other words, it would appear that he cannot, with pure logic, rule out
the possibility - even to himself - of Logical-David being merely a
zombie.
No. Even the zombie can see that he cannot. That's why the
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
What new fact could possibly refute physicalism??? (or mathematical
platonism, or whatever)
How could physicalism account for a big giant hand of god (?) appearing in
the sky ? :D
Would you believe it was the hand of
On 02 Sep 2010, at 10:03, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 02 Sep 2010, at 04:15, Rex Allen wrote:
Accidentalism, and...what else? Refraining from metaphysical
speculation altogether?
That is the good idea!
Easier said than
On 02 Sep 2010, at 10:01, Rex Allen wrote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
In some case the metatheory can itself be an object of the theory.
For
example zoologists are animal (but botanist are not plant). Since
Gödel we
know that the theory Peano
What about reductive maximalism? :) The physicalist has the problem
that he doesn't know what the right level is, as in his world, all
observationally equivalent explanations are interchangeable. What he
can do is appeal to simplicity in reducing everything to some atomic
objects, which are then
On 02 Sep 2010, at 17:02, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 September 2010 21:51, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
In
other words, it would appear that he cannot, with pure logic, rule
out
the possibility - even to himself - of Logical-David being merely a
zombie.
No. Even the zombie can see
on 02.09.2010 17:57 Bruno Marchal said the following:
...
Science is only collection of theories, and statements derive in
those theories, and intepretation rules, and confirmation modus
operandi. Only layman and engineers have to hope that their theories
fits enough a reality.
The theories
On 2 September 2010 18:32, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
So, as far as I am true, beliefs coincide with knowledge.
Yes, I can see that this statement essentially sums up exactly what I
was trying to say! Its structure expresses the relation between
formal (belief) and non-formal
On 9/2/2010 1:32 AM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Quentin Anciauxallco...@gmail.com wrote:
I did read your preceeding message. And what I got out of it is that
if you consistently apply your evaluative criteria, you should
conclude that physicalism, platonism, deism,
2010/9/1 Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
I should just add that idealist accidentalism is *exactly* as
irrefutable
as solipsism.
Hence by that it has no value... but it's not refuted.
What would refute
On 01 Sep 2010, at 00:13, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2010/8/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 29 Aug 2010, at 21:20, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
Excellent topic and comments! Naturalism does seem to be a
On 31 Aug 2010, at 19:36, Rex Allen wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
So idealist accidentalism...the view that what exists is mental,
and
that there is no underlying process that explains or governs this
existence.
If idealist
On 1 September 2010 09:21, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
How does my experience of
dreaming of a tree connect to numbers? What is it that generates my
experience of a tree from the brutely existing substrate of numbers?
Well, from the true but non communicable part given by the
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:14 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
Euh..
I'm sorry but where did I state my belief in the preceeding message ? Where
did I spoke about physicalism ?
I spoke about idealist accidentalism in answer to Bruno who said wrongly
it's been refuted when it's
On 01 Sep 2010, at 20:03, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 September 2010 09:21, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
How does my experience of
dreaming of a tree connect to numbers? What is it that generates my
experience of a tree from the brutely existing substrate of numbers?
Well, from the
2010/9/2 Rex Allen rexallen31...@gmail.com
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:14 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
Euh..
I'm sorry but where did I state my belief in the preceeding message ?
Where
did I spoke about physicalism ?
I spoke about idealist accidentalism in answer to
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
So idealist accidentalism...the view that what exists is mental, and
that there is no underlying process that explains or governs this
existence.
If idealist accidentalism is correct then there is no theory at all.
2010/8/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 29 Aug 2010, at 21:20, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
Excellent topic and comments! Naturalism does seem to be a
natural condition of humans given their predilection
2010/9/1 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
2010/8/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 29 Aug 2010, at 21:20, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
Excellent topic and comments! Naturalism does seem to be a
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
I should just add that idealist accidentalism is *exactly* as irrefutable
as solipsism.
Hence by that it has no value... but it's not refuted.
What would refute physicalism? It would seem to me that quantum
mechanics
On 29 Aug 2010, at 21:20, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
Excellent topic and comments! Naturalism does seem to be a
natural condition of humans given their predilection for
supernatural or
supranatural
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Excellent topic and comments! Naturalism does seem to be a
natural condition of humans given their predilection for supernatural or
supranatural explanations of events that have no simplistic
@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rex Allen
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 1:09 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this?
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:37 PM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
If we could remove ourselves from
1:09 PM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: What's wrong with this?
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:37 PM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com
mailto:david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
If we could remove ourselves from the universe and take a strict
reductionist-god's eye view (which means
On 28 Aug 2010, at 02:26, David Nyman wrote:
On 27 August 2010 19:21, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But most reductionist would say that they believe in atom and in
their
properties, and this makes it possible to enter in a great variety of
different combinations having themselves
David,
Your question reminds me of the phrase (I wish I could recall the source)
Who pushes who around inside the brain? Is it the lowest level
reductionist view of microscopic particles or do the macroscopic brain
states end up causally affecting microscopic states of individual neurons
and
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:37 PM, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
If we could remove ourselves from the universe and take a strict
reductionist-god's eye view (which means having to drop all our usual
mental categories - a very hard thing to achieve imaginatively) then,
strictly
On 27 August 2010 19:21, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
But most reductionist would say that they believe in atom and in their
properties, and this makes it possible to enter in a great variety of
different combinations having themselves even more non trivial properties.
Why would a
Dear David,
Very well said! Let me add a quote from Carlo Rovelli (in the
context of discussions of the notion of observation in QM) found in Quo
Vadis Quantum Mechanics? (ed. Elitzur, Dolev and Kolenda):
My main suggestion is to forbid ourselves to use the point of view of God.
Do not
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
