Well, then make a testable prediction about something in the mind that is
not otherwise known.
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Apr 2013, at 19:59, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Not true. GR and QM derived experimental results that were not known to
On 14 Apr 2013, at 19:21, Richard Ruquist wrote:
But Bruno, if comp only produces what is already known to science,
how do we know that comp is responsible? String theory has this
problem
We never know such thing. We can only propose a theory, derive facts,
and verify them. If the
Not true. GR and QM derived experimental results that were not known to
science before hand.
I suggest that comp has to do that otherwise it will remain a curious
metaphysics
but not accepted as knowledge.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Apr 2013,
On 13 Apr 2013, at 15:13, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno,
Could you explain by example how comp could be verified.?
This is more or less planned for the FOAR list.
In a nutshell, using some image, comp says that the big truth (about
consciousness and matter) is in your head. With you = any
On 12 Apr 2013, at 02:47, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
No they don't. An epiphenomenon is an emergent effect. The natural
world is full of complexity and emergent phenomena.
Like arithmetic, from which nature emerge itself, necessarily so (and
in a verifiable way) if we assume that we have a
Bruno,
Could you explain by example how comp could be verified.?
That is does comp predict something that is not also predicted by science?
What comes to my mind is consciousness.
Richard
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Apr 2013, at 02:47,
On Thursday, April 11, 2013 8:47:49 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
So you are saying that my arm moves at random times like the lottery
pays
off randomly? How come I can predict when I am about to
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10:03:51 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
If you ARE the sequence of neurological events and the neurological
On Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:57:39 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10:03:51 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Craig Weinberg
On Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:23:06 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
Muscles and cells follow your intention if they receive input from
conscious centres in your brain, but the cells in those centres
follow
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
So you are saying that my arm moves at random times like the lottery
pays
off randomly? How come I can predict when I am about to move my arm and
be
right every time?
The lottery pays off unpredictably to an
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you ARE the sequence of neurological events and the neurological events
follow deterministic or probabilistic rules then you will also follow
deterministic or probabilistic rules.
That's a tautology. If I move
On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10:03:51 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
If you ARE the sequence of neurological events and the neurological
events
follow deterministic or probabilistic rules then you will
On Thursday, April 4, 2013 12:55:44 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
There are, of course, undiscovered scientific facts. If scientists did not
believe that they would give up science. But Craig is not
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:54 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Stathis,
your lengthy reply to Craig is a bit longer than I can manage to reply in
all facets so here is a condensed opinion:
Yes, these posts are probably getting a bit too long.
Your position about the 'material'
On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 10:59:35 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 4/2/2013 6:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 8:07:48 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 4/2/2013 3:54 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Stathis,
your lengthy reply to Craig is a bit longer than I can manage to
On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 3:04:50 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:54 AM, John Mikes jam...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Dear Stathis,
your lengthy reply to Craig is a bit longer than I can manage to reply in
all facets so here is a condensed opinion:
Yes, these
On 4/3/2013 7:33 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Not only is the function of the artificial peptides the same, the patient also feels the
same. Wouldn't you expect them to feel a bit different?
How do you know? Maybe they became zombies.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
There are, of course, undiscovered scientific facts. If scientists did not
believe that they would give up science. But Craig is not saying that there
are processes inside cells that are controlled by as yet undiscovered
On 4/2/2013 3:54 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Stathis,
your lengthy reply to Craig is a bit longer than I can manage to reply in all facets so
here is a condensed opinion:
Your position about the 'material' world (atoms, etc.) seems a bit mechanistic: like us,
the (call it:) inanimates are
On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 8:07:48 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 4/2/2013 3:54 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Stathis,
your lengthy reply to Craig is a bit longer than I can manage to reply in
all facets so here is a condensed opinion:
Your position about the 'material' world (atoms, etc.)
On 4/2/2013 6:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 8:07:48 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 4/2/2013 3:54 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Stathis,
your lengthy reply to Craig is a bit longer than I can manage to reply in
all
facets so here is a condensed opinion:
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I find it difficult to understand how you could be thinking about
these things. If I put atoms in the configuration of a duck but as you
claim I don't get a duck, I must have missed something out.
Because a duck's
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If the right atoms are placed in the right configuration then life or
consciousness occurs.
You don't know that, you just assume it. It's like saying that if the right
cars are placed in the right configuration
On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 8:37:43 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:
*From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:
everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *Stathis
Papaioannou
*Sent:* Tuesday, March 26, 2013 8:04 AM
*To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It is obviously possible that intentional comes from non-intentional,
since that is what actually happened.
It could not have happened unless the potential for intention was inherently
present from the start. The
On Saturday, March 23, 2013 7:05:59 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
It is obviously possible that intentional comes from non-intentional,
since that is what actually happened.
It could not have
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
There is surely a difference between living and non-living, but
nevertheless it is possible to get living from non-living.
Not without the potential for life already present in the universe. If there
was a universe
On Friday, March 22, 2013 4:08:10 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
There is surely a difference between living and non-living, but
nevertheless it is possible to get living from non-living.
Not
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
How could something non-living lead to something living?
Non-living and living are just different qualities of experience. Living
systems are nested non-living systems, which gives rise to mortality and
condenses
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 11:42:38 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
At least you now agree that the atoms in my body could be replaced and
I would feel the same. What if the atoms were replaced by a
On Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:44:16 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
How could something non-living lead to something living?
Non-living and living are just different qualities of experience. Living
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
To recap then, the difference between non-living and living is only visible
to the living. Biological units are vastly larger and slower, more
vulnerable in a thousand ways than molecular units, but they are a sign
On Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:06:51 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
To recap then, the difference between non-living and living is only
visible
to the living. Biological units are vastly larger and
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
All I am saying is that you should start with something that is not
already loaded with your conclusion, then reach your conclusion
through argument. If I intend to do something I do it because I want
to do it. On
On 20 Mar 2013, at 00:14, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/19/2013 3:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'll agree on your terms, but you have to make it explicit.
My terms are:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 4:03:29 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
All I am saying is that you should start with something that is not
already loaded with your conclusion, then reach your conclusion
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You say it doesn't make sense that intentional could come from
unintentional but I don't see that at all, not at all. You claim to
have an insight that other people don't have.
Lots of people have had this insight.
On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 7:32:11 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You say it doesn't make sense that intentional could come from
unintentional but I don't see that at all, not at all. You claim to
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
At least you now agree that the atoms in my body could be replaced and
I would feel the same. What if the atoms were replaced by a person:
would I still have free will or would I, as you claim for a computer,
only
On 19.03.2013 02:05 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you say that free will is compatible with determinism then you
are an compatibilist, otherwise you are an incompatibilist. Why
do you try to make the
On Monday, March 18, 2013 9:05:13 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
If you say that free will is compatible with determinism then you are
an compatibilist, otherwise you are an incompatibilist. Why do you
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
We need to agree on terminology if we're going to have a discussion at
all. Have aliens visited the Earth? We need to agree that an alien
is a being born on another planet. It doesn't mean we agree on the
facts, but
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 5:37:34 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
We need to agree on terminology if we're going to have a discussion at
all. Have aliens visited the Earth? We need to agree that an alien
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll agree on your terms, but you have to make it explicit.
My terms are:
Super-Personal Intentional (Intuition)
|
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 6:19:22 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I'll agree on your terms, but you have to make it explicit.
My terms are:
Super-Personal
On 3/19/2013 3:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll agree on your terms, but you have to make it explicit.
My terms are:
Super-Personal Intentional (Intuition)
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 7:14:14 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/19/2013 3:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I'll agree on your terms, but you have to make it explicit.
My terms are:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 6:19:22 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'll agree on your terms, but you have to make it explicit.
My terms
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 8:09:47 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 6:19:22 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, a common definition of control is the ability to
determine something's behaviour according to your wishes. That you
have wishes is independent of whether you have free will, whatever the
definition of
On Monday, March 18, 2013 2:28:34 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
As I said, a common definition of control is the ability to
determine something's behaviour according to your wishes. That you
have
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
But compatibilists and incompatibilists could agree on all the facts
of the matter and still disagree on free will, which makes it a matter
of definition. The argument is then over which definition is most
commonly
On Monday, March 18, 2013 7:34:59 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
But compatibilists and incompatibilists could agree on all the facts
of the matter and still disagree on free will, which makes it a
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you say that free will is compatible with determinism then you are
an compatibilist, otherwise you are an incompatibilist. Why do you try
to make the discussion difficult by refusing to agree on terminology?
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You insist that free will is incompatible with determinism or
randomness. If I accept this definition, then free will is impossible.
Control can be defined in such a way that it is possible even if
free will is
On Sunday, March 17, 2013 3:16:15 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You insist that free will is incompatible with determinism or
randomness. If I accept this definition, then free will is impossible.
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You persist in saying that if the components of the system are
mechanistic then the system cannot control something. That is not the
way the phrase is normally used.
What do you mean by 'control'? Can you define
On 16 Mar 2013, at 08:15, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You persist in saying that if the components of the system are
mechanistic then the system cannot control something. That is not
the
way the phrase is
On Saturday, March 16, 2013 3:15:58 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You persist in saying that if the components of the system are
mechanistic then the system cannot control something. That is not the
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Control can be defined less controversially than free will. I
control something if I can determine its behaviour according to my
wishes.
What do you see as being the difference between free will and the ability to
On Saturday, March 16, 2013 8:54:35 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Control can be defined less controversially than free will. I
control something if I can determine its behaviour according to my
Apparently the legacy view negates free will.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
What does it mean to 'lose control' of something?
Your car, your bladder, your gambling, your pet Rottweiler...
What are the broad physical principles involved? What are
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
What does it mean to 'lose control' of something?
Your car, your bladder, your gambling, your pet Rottweiler...
What are the broad physical principles involved? What are we talking about
when we refer to this, and
On Friday, March 15, 2013 4:11:28 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
What does it mean to 'lose control' of something?
Your car, your bladder, your gambling, your pet Rottweiler...
What are the broad
On Friday, March 15, 2013 2:06:50 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
Apparently the legacy view negates free will.
I think it does in many people's minds - or it would if they took their own
beliefs seriously.
Craig
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Craig Weinberg
Again the shorcomings of nominamism/positivism. The greeks would laugh at
these questions. It can be explained if we abandon the monomaniatic
reductionistic physicalism and think in terms of just what we are: rational
beings:
I think that the notion of lost control of something in an intelligent
On Friday, March 15, 2013 8:16:37 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
Again the shorcomings of nominamism/positivism. The greeks would laugh at
these questions. It can be explained if we abandon the monomaniatic
reductionistic physicalism and think in terms of just what we are: rational
68 matches
Mail list logo
