On 08 May 2012, at 20:09, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/7/2012 12:09 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 19:52 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
To me the logic of
On 08 May 2012, at 20:17, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 22:21 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
...
Sure science grew out of Christianity, out of the decay and
fragmentation of Christianity.
When Christianity was strong and
On 08 May 2012, at 21:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/8/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 8, 2:17 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 07.05.2012 22:21 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
...
Sure science grew out of
On 09.05.2012 08:47 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 08 May 2012, at 21:41, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/8/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 8, 2:17 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 07.05.2012 22:21 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On May 7, 3:37 pm,
On 08.05.2012 21:48 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/8/2012 11:09 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
For the development of science, it is necessary to have a believe that
equations discovered by a human mind could be used for the whole
history of Universe. At that time, this belief came from
On 07 May 2012, at 20:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/7/2012 10:35 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.05.2012 22:06 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/6/2012 10:51 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 05.05.2012 23:34 meekerdb said the following:
...
I would agree with that. Rome fell for other, more
On 07 May 2012, at 22:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/7/2012 11:50 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It's like saying that that apes didn't evolve as hominids did,
therefore apes are inherently an evolutionary dead end. Logic and
scholasticism
On 07.05.2012 22:19 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/7/2012 12:29 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 20:11 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/7/2012 10:42 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 04:17 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/6/2012 5:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 6,
On 07.05.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/7/2012 12:09 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 19:52 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
To me the logic of trinity is perverse in the same extent as quantum
On 07.05.2012 22:21 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
...
Sure science grew out of Christianity, out of the decay and fragmentation of
Christianity.
When Christianity was strong and in control is what we call The Dark Ages.
Now that
On May 8, 2:17 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 07.05.2012 22:21 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
...
Sure science grew out of Christianity, out of the decay and fragmentation
of Christianity.
When Christianity
On 5/8/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 8, 2:17 pm, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 07.05.2012 22:21 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.netwrote:
...
Sure science grew out of Christianity, out of the decay and
On 5/8/2012 11:09 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/7/2012 12:09 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 19:52 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
To me the logic of trinity is
On May 8, 3:41 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/8/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 8, 2:17 pm, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
On 07.05.2012 22:21 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
...
On May 6, 10:17 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/6/2012 5:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 6, 4:06 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Newton, Boyle, Tyndall, Descarte, Laplace,
Kepler,...none of them were from the universities, which were dominated by
theology.
On 06.05.2012 22:06 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/6/2012 10:51 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 05.05.2012 23:34 meekerdb said the following:
...
I would agree with that. Rome fell for other, more material reasons. But
its fall created a power vacuum which was filled by organized
On 07.05.2012 04:17 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/6/2012 5:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 6, 4:06 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Newton, Boyle, Tyndall, Descarte, Laplace,
Kepler,...none of them were from the universities, which were
dominated by theology.
All of them were
On 5/7/2012 8:40 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Of course musical criticism is political. A negative review from a
prominent critic is supposed to have consequences for the career of
the musician. Same for restaurant critics, film critics, etc. Part of
being a successful critic is being courted by
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
To me the logic of trinity is perverse in the same extent as quantum
mechanics.
Perverse it may be but it's not my business to judge what quantum mechanics
does in private when nobody is looking, that's up to quantum
On 5/7/2012 10:35 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.05.2012 22:06 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/6/2012 10:51 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 05.05.2012 23:34 meekerdb said the following:
...
I would agree with that. Rome fell for other, more material reasons. But
its fall created a power
On 5/7/2012 10:42 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 04:17 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/6/2012 5:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 6, 4:06 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Newton, Boyle, Tyndall, Descarte, Laplace,
Kepler,...none of them were from the universities, which
On May 7, 1:45 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/7/2012 8:40 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Of course musical criticism is political. A negative review from a
prominent critic is supposed to have consequences for the career of
the musician. Same for restaurant critics, film critics,
On May 7, 2:01 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Logic, grammar, mathematics were developed for a long time before science.
They are
necessary for science, but what marks science as a distinct intellectual
enterprise is
skeptical observation and empirical testing. The scholastics
On 07.05.2012 19:52 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
To me the logic of trinity is perverse in the same extent as quantum
mechanics.
Perverse it may be but it's not my business to judge what quantum mechanics
does in
On 07.05.2012 20:01 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/7/2012 10:35 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
It must have had its causes, but I note that it coincided with the
reformation and the fragmentation of the Church's power. Science
developed most in England where Henry VIII had divorced the
On 07.05.2012 20:11 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/7/2012 10:42 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 04:17 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/6/2012 5:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 6, 4:06 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Newton, Boyle, Tyndall, Descarte, Laplace,
On 5/7/2012 11:50 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It's like saying that that apes didn't evolve as hominids did,
therefore apes are inherently an evolutionary dead end. Logic and
scholasticism are what science is made of. The ideas of empirical
testing and skeptical observation are direct outgrowths
On 5/7/2012 12:09 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 19:52 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
To me the logic of trinity is perverse in the same extent as quantum
mechanics.
Perverse it may be but it's not my
On 5/7/2012 12:29 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 20:11 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/7/2012 10:42 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 04:17 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/6/2012 5:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 6, 4:06 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/7/2012 11:50 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It's like saying that that apes didn't evolve as hominids did,
therefore apes are inherently an evolutionary dead end. Logic and
scholasticism are what science is made of. The ideas of
On May 7, 3:49 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
so by logic 1=3 implies anything at all.
You mean the indivisible unity of the three quark proton?
Craig
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send
On 5/7/2012 1:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 7, 3:49 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
so by logic 1=3 implies anything at all.
You mean the indivisible unity of the three quark proton?
Craig
First, nobody cares if you believe it, even if you're a physics graduate student.
On May 7, 4:28 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/7/2012 1:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 7, 3:49 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
so by logic 1=3 implies anything at all.
You mean the indivisible unity of the three quark proton?
Craig
First, nobody cares if you
On 5/7/2012 1:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 7, 4:28 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/7/2012 1:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 7, 3:49 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.netwrote:
so by logic 1=3 implies anything at all.
You mean the indivisible unity of the three quark
On 7 May 2012 20:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous
as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.
The Cardinal was perfectly correct in this assertion, of course.
David
--
You received this message because you are
On 5/7/2012 2:11 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 7 May 2012 20:37, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous
as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.
The Cardinal was perfectly correct in this assertion, of course.
David
Do you
On 7 May 2012 22:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Do you want to explain - and I'm well aware that 'revolves around' is
relative to coordinate frames. But you know that Bellarme was not equating
relativism of orbital motion with relativism about the virgin birth.
The Cardinal stated
On May 7, 5:10 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/7/2012 1:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 7, 4:28 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/7/2012 1:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 7, 3:49 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
so by logic 1=3 implies
On 05.05.2012 23:34 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/5/2012 1:07 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
According to Prof Hoenen, the logic of trinity was at that time
basically in the blood. He gave several examples including even Marx.
According to Prof Hoenen, the logic in Marx's Capital is the
On 5/6/2012 10:51 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 05.05.2012 23:34 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/5/2012 1:07 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
According to Prof Hoenen, the logic of trinity was at that time
basically in the blood. He gave several examples including even Marx.
According to Prof
On May 6, 4:06 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Newton, Boyle, Tyndall, Descarte, Laplace,
Kepler,...none of them were from the universities, which were dominated by
theology.
All of them were still theological thinkers though, as were Bacon,
Copernicus, Paracelsus, the Islamic
On 5/6/2012 5:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 6, 4:06 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Newton, Boyle, Tyndall, Descarte, Laplace,
Kepler,...none of them were from the universities, which were dominated by
theology.
All of them were still theological thinkers though,
Theological
On 04.05.2012 23:45 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/4/2012 2:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
...
I'm not saying that science and religion are on an equal footing, but
I think it's a just-so-story to account for it by assuming that
religion must be easier to master and therefore more
On May 4, 5:45 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/4/2012 2:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You are right that there are different kinds of understanding (to me
they fall along the lines of subjective orientation vs objective
orientation) but I wouldn't say that one is inherently
On 5/4/2012 11:59 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 04.05.2012 23:45 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/4/2012 2:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
...
I'm not saying that science and religion are on an equal footing, but
I think it's a just-so-story to account for it by assuming that
religion must be
On 05.05.2012 18:08 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/4/2012 11:59 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 04.05.2012 23:45 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/4/2012 2:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
...
I'm not saying that science and religion are on an equal footing, but
I think it's a just-so-story to
On 5/5/2012 11:05 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 05.05.2012 18:08 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/4/2012 11:59 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 04.05.2012 23:45 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/4/2012 2:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
...
I'm not saying that science and religion are on an equal
On 05.05.2012 20:30 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/5/2012 11:05 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
According to Collingwood (as Prof Hoenen has told) one can find a
reason in Christianity. First, it is monotheism and this is quite
important to infer inexorable scientific laws. Second trinity.
On 5/5/2012 1:07 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 05.05.2012 20:30 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/5/2012 11:05 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
...
According to Collingwood (as Prof Hoenen has told) one can find a
reason in Christianity. First, it is monotheism and this is quite
important to infer
Craig:
you seem to be firmly anchored in a reductionist conventional view of the
know-it-all model of yesterday. Which is OK with me, as YOUR opinion. I
consider - in my agnostic limitations - those 'factors' (rather: relations)
we did not encounter SO FAR and give an extended view to the model.
On May 4, 3:39 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Craig:
you seem to be firmly anchored in a reductionist conventional view of the
know-it-all model of yesterday.
I think that I am instead, comfortably camped out in a make sense of
it all model of tomorrow which embraces and rejects both
On 5/4/2012 12:39 PM, John Mikes wrote:
I see the development into more understanding (did I say: better? No)
of the belief miraculous that governed human thinking earlier.
Understanding is one of those words often misunderstood. It is used to refer both to a
feeling of familiarity and
On May 4, 4:42 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/4/2012 12:39 PM, John Mikes wrote:
I see the development into more understanding (did I say: better? No)
of the belief miraculous that governed human thinking earlier.
Understanding is one of those words often misunderstood.
On 5/4/2012 2:18 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On May 4, 4:42 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/4/2012 12:39 PM, John Mikes wrote:
I see the development into more understanding (did I say: better? No)
of the belief miraculous that governed human thinking earlier.
Understanding is
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
there is really nothing more or less to say about it other than that
it is primordial orientation itself.
So awareness is the feeling data has when it is being processed, and
there is not much more you can say
On May 3, 4:08 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
there is really nothing more or less to say about it other than that
it is primordial orientation itself.
So awareness is the feeling data has when it
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
If awareness is primordial,
I think it's fundamental.
there is really nothing more or less to say about it other than that it
is primordial orientation itself.
So awareness is the feeling data has when it is
On May 2, 1:29 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
If awareness is primordial,
I think it's fundamental.
Do you consider the terms to be the same or different?
there is really nothing more or less to say
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
You can choose to create a new reason and act based on that.
Certainly, and you created a new reason and acted on that for a reason OR
you did not, there is no third alternative.
You did X rather than Y because you
On May 1, 1:49 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
You can choose to create a new reason and act based on that.
Certainly, and you created a new reason and acted on that for a reason OR
you did not, there is
On Apr 30, 2:53 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/29/2012 6:37 PM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:30 am, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/29/2012 5:26 PM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 29, 8:37 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/29/2012 3:22 AM, 1Z wrote:
On
On Apr 30, 12:02 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/29/2012 8:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Apr 29, 11:40 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So why is it that some people don't feel pain?
You mean physiologically, like Leprosy or a spinal cord injury?
No, genetically.
On Sun, Apr 29, 201 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You create the reason to act for many reasons, but you may not be
determined by any one of them
So the reason you acted was the reason you created but that is not one of
the many reasons you acted. Well I'm glad you cleared that
On 29 Apr 2012, at 18:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Apr 29, 11:28 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Biologist have not make life disappearing, they have truly
explained
the phenomenon, from other well accepted phenomena.
But saying that AI or brain research can dispose of the
On Apr 30, 12:47 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 201 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You create the reason to act for many reasons, but you may not be
determined by any one of them
So the reason you acted was the reason you created but that is not one
On Apr 27, 11:19 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That's why I said, except for people who believe in philosophical zombies.
Brent
A quailess AI isn;t a p-zombie. A p-zombie is physically identical to
a human. An AI will be
made out of silicon or something, which could
On Apr 27, 9:16 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/27/2012 12:00 PM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 7:13 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
We never explained where the elan vital was or where it came
from. We just came up with a different kind of 'explanation'.
And the EV
On Apr 27, 9:29 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 27, 11:38 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
What do you say the efficient cause of feeling is?
Some priori brain state.
What could make a brain state cause a feeling?
A psychophsical law
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It's standard use of language that if something is not determined it
is random.
I have never heard of that in my life. Did you say that because you
had no choice or was it random?
If something is determined it
On 4/29/2012 3:22 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 11:19 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That's why I said, except for people who believe in philosophical zombies.
Brent
A quailess AI isn;t a p-zombie. A p-zombie is physically identical to
a human. An AI will be
made out of silicon or
On Apr 29, 1:26 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
How many times do you want me to restate the obvious third alternative
42.
YOU CREATE the reason to act.
OK, then you create the reason to act for a reason OR you
On Apr 29, 8:37 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/29/2012 3:22 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 11:19 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That's why I said, except for people who believe in philosophical
zombies.
Brent
A quailess AI isn;t a p-zombie. A p-zombie is
On 4/29/2012 5:26 PM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 29, 8:37 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/29/2012 3:22 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 11:19 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That's why I said, except for people who believe in philosophical zombies.
Brent
A quailess AI isn;t a
On Apr 30, 2:30 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/29/2012 5:26 PM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 29, 8:37 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/29/2012 3:22 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 11:19 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That's why I said, except for people who
On 4/29/2012 6:37 PM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:30 am, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/29/2012 5:26 PM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 29, 8:37 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.netwrote:
On 4/29/2012 3:22 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 11:19 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
That's
On Apr 29, 9:53 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think we do. My dog acts intelligently and most people suppose he
experiences qualia.
Do we think a stupid dog experiences qualia which is not as rich as
that of a smart dog? Pain does not hurt as much for a dog that doesn't
know
On 4/29/2012 8:03 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Apr 29, 9:53 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think we do. My dog acts intelligently and most people suppose he
experiences qualia.
Do we think a stupid dog experiences qualia which is not as rich as
that of a smart dog?
No, but I
On Apr 29, 11:17 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/29/2012 8:03 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Apr 29, 9:53 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think we do. My dog acts intelligently and most people suppose he
experiences qualia.
Do we think a stupid dog experiences
On 4/29/2012 8:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Apr 29, 11:17 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/29/2012 8:03 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Apr 29, 9:53 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.netwrote:
I think we do. My dog acts intelligently and most people suppose he
experiences
On Apr 29, 11:40 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So why is it that some people don't feel pain?
You mean physiologically, like Leprosy or a spinal cord injury?
If your receiving instrument is damaged, you can't properly access the
experiences that others can. Lose your internet
On 4/29/2012 8:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Apr 29, 11:40 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So why is it that some people don't feel pain?
You mean physiologically, like Leprosy or a spinal cord injury?
No, genetically. There is no specific 'receiving instrument' for pain.
Brent
On 28 Apr 2012, at 03:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/27/2012 5:41 PM, John Mikes wrote:
David, IZ, Brent:
do you have some fairly acceptable (for whom?) ID
Intelligent Design??
about that darn 'vita'?
That would ease the problem to accept or reject EV. Some people
'ride' the Terrestrial
On Apr 28, 4:29 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Because by construction it eliminates consciousness.
When biologists eliminate the elan vital, by using chemistry instead,
there is a real progress because they eliminate a spurious linguistic
gap-type explanation by an explanation
On 4/28/2012 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Apr 2012, at 03:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/27/2012 5:41 PM, John Mikes wrote:
David, IZ, Brent:
do you have some fairly acceptable (for whom?) ID
Intelligent Design??
about that darn 'vita'?
That would ease the problem to accept or reject
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Who is it other than you that claims that the proposition that all
possible things are either random or determined is true
Anyone with half a brain or anyone who has spent 2 minutes thinking what it
means to be
On Apr 27, 10:27 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 27, 5:02 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 27, 9:51 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
To say that nothing is no-thing
(the thing that is the absence of things) is completely valid,
No,
On 26 Apr 2012, at 22:17, graytiger wrote:
On 14 mrt, 17:49, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
'The concept of an afterlife is a perfectly reasonable thing to be
able
to imagine'
It is not. There is no strongly justified argument to suppose that
aynthing 'mind' like can stay in
On Apr 24, 7:54 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 4:21 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 21, 8:37 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 20, 8:36 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 5, 1:37 pm, Craig Weinberg
On Apr 24, 6:19 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It is a standard use of language to say that people are responsible in
varying degrees for their actions. I don't understand why you claim
that your binary determinism is 'standard language' in some way. When
we talk about
On Apr 23, 3:49 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:57 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If you're bloody-minded enough you can claim here isn't really an
obvious connection between clouds and rain either.
Sure, it's a matter of degree. If I
On Apr 24, 8:07 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
context was a War of the Worldviews presentation, where she was
s She likes to be provocative anyhow. I still
don't see how calling it a mirage or illusion gets around the hard
problem at all. A mirage to whom?
More to the
On Apr 27, 12:53 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
A small injection will convince you that they are feelings.
Why? If I buy you dinner with a credit card, are you convinced that
credit cards are dinner?
Craig
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On Apr 25, 10:21 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not saying that consciousness is not mysterious and certainly not
non-existent (I think people who say that do it just do it to be
provocative). But it is a problem when a mysterious thing is explained
in terms of
On Apr 25, 10:25 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/25/2012 11:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 24.04.2012 22:22 meekerdb said the following:
...
As I've posted before, when we know how look at a brain and infer what
it's thinking and we know how to build a brain
On Apr 26, 8:31 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
I never said there is no choosing, we choose things all the time. Unlike
the noise free will the word choose actually means something; if at a
particular time I can see that there are 2 actions (X or Y) I can take and
I don't know
On Apr 27, 9:11 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 7:54 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 4:21 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 21, 8:37 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 20, 8:36 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com
On 26 Apr 2012, at 23:34, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Apr 26, 1:52 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Apr 2012, at 16:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Apr 25, 11:44 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
This means only that you have a reductionist conception of machine.
I
On Apr 27, 10:00 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
That's a rather shallow dismissal of compatibiism. We absolve
people of guilt if they are compelled by an agency,
but causaiton
is not the same as compulsion.
Only if there is free will. Without free will, of course compulsion is
the same
On Apr 27, 10:11 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Apr 23, 3:49 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:57 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If you're bloody-minded enough you can claim here isn't really an
obvious connection between clouds and
On 27 Apr 2012, at 05:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/26/2012 7:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
because people don't like the idea of dying. But that doesn't
prove a
thing.
It proves my point - that it is a perfectly reasonable thing to be
able to imagine.
People think they can imagine things
1 - 100 of 240 matches
Mail list logo
