is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-07, 10:08:58
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A
nicevideodiscussingthedual aspect theory
Hi Roger Clough
...@verizon.net
10/7/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-06, 15:19:35
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice
videodiscussingthedual aspect
On 05 Oct 2012, at 19:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/5/2012 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger,
Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that
sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not.
They avoid the comp necessary
On 10/6/2012 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Oct 2012, at 19:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/5/2012 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger,
Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that
sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers,
On 06 Oct 2012, at 09:52, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/6/2012 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Oct 2012, at 19:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/5/2012 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger,
Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In
that sense
. Could you be wrong ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/6/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-05, 11:13:06
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-06, 04:39:30
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word!
On 06 Oct 2012, at 09:52, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/6/2012 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Oct 2012, at 19:39, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/5/2012 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal
the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-05, 21:39:08
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video
discussingthedual aspect theory
On 10/5/2012 5:15 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 07:33:53AM -0400, Roger Clough
the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-05, 11:13:06
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video
discussingthe dual aspect theory
Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger,
Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that
sense
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video
discussingthedual aspect theory
Hi Roger Clough,
On 06 Oct 2012, at 12:46, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I understand that comp does not include subjectivity,
but that's just explicitly.
?
Comp is defined
On 10/6/2012 12:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You mean: all person have an infinity of relative incarnation in arithmetic. This is not
entirely trivial to prove. You can't attribute to people statements they don't make. If
they did not ignore the 1p-indeterminacy, they would not assume matter.
On 06 Oct 2012, at 18:06, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/6/2012 12:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You mean: all person have an infinity of relative incarnation in
arithmetic. This is not entirely trivial to prove. You can't
attribute to people statements they don't make. If they did not
ignore the
content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-06, 08:48:04
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video
discussingthedual aspect theory
Hi Roger Clough,
On 06 Oct 2012, at 12:46, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I understand that comp
Hi Stephen P. King
Many thanks, Stephan !
I should have known it before, but
double-aspect and/or dual-aspect theories
of mind aren't afraid of using the word
subjectivity.
Now all they have to do is find out
who or what is the subjectr of subjectivity !
Roger Clough,
Along the theme of a dual-aspect theory of reality,
I recommend the book
Mind and Cosmos:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of
Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Nagel, Thomas.
It actually has little to do with Darwin but rather discusses how
consciousness, cognition, etc. cannot not be
Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-05, 07:15:41
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-05, 07:15:41
Subject: Re: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video
discussingthe dual aspect
Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger,
Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that
sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not.
They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of the mind-body problem.
It is still Aristotle theory variants, unaware of the
: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video
discussingthe dual aspect theory
Along the theme of a dual-aspect theory of reality,
I recommend the book
Mind and Cosmos:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of
Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Nagel, Thomas.
It actually has little
On 10/5/2012 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger,
Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that
sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not.
They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of the mind-body problem.
It is still
On 10/5/2012 12:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Many thanks, Stephan !
I should have known it before, but
double-aspect and/or dual-aspect theories
: Subjectivity is no longer a dirty word! A nice video
discussingthe dual aspect theory
Along the theme of a dual-aspect theory of reality,
I recommend the book
Mind and Cosmos:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of
Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Nagel, Thomas.
It actually has little to do
Hi Stephen,
Yeah, I was wandering there a bit. Just still not used to the irony of
altered states being used in an argument that leaves unsaid the elephant in
the room.
But I guess if we want something with set and point, this might also be
your cup of tea, if you're not already familiar with
On 10/5/2012 2:22 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Deacon's 600 page book
(http://www.amazon.com/Incomplete-Nature-Mind-Emerged-Matter/dp/0393049914)
flushes out the philosophical outlines of Nagel's much shorter book
(http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception).
I found a
On 10/5/2012 2:41 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Yeah, I was wandering there a bit. Just still not used to the irony of
altered states being used in an argument that leaves unsaid the
elephant in the room.
But I guess if we want something with set and point, this might also
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 07:33:53AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
I appreciate your suggestion, but I am already convinced,
and have other sources besides that.
What I'm looking for is a book which gives the central
mechanism of abiogenesis, the production of living
On 10/5/2012 5:15 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 07:33:53AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
I appreciate your suggestion, but I am already convinced,
and have other sources besides that.
What I'm looking for is a book which gives the central
27 matches
Mail list logo
