Jesse writes
I meant that your perceptions have physiological causes
because your brain is a part of an obviously successful
survival machine designed by evolution.
Sure, but all of this is compatible with an idealist philosophy where
reality is made up of nothing but observer-moments
Lee Corbin wrote:
Jesse writes
I meant that your perceptions have physiological causes
because your brain is a part of an obviously successful
survival machine designed by evolution.
Sure, but all of this is compatible with an idealist philosophy where
reality is made up of nothing
sorry for the misaddressing...
-- Forwarded message --
From: Aditya Varun Chadha [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Jul 30, 2005 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: What We Can Know About the World
To: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At the risk of barging in once again,
Since there is nothing
Dear Jesse and Lee,
I must interject!
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 9:32 AM
Subject: RE: What We Can Know About the World
Lee Corbin wrote:
snip
[LC]
The disagreement I
Le 29-juil.-05, à 05:46, Bill Taylor wrote (FOR-LIST)
Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-I would say theology is even more important. than physics
!!! ???
I will try to explain. The word theology has many connotations. The
word is not so important if you understand the idea.
I
Hal Finney wrote:
No doubt this is true. But there are still two somewhat-related problems.
One is, you can go back in time to the first replicator on earth, and
think of its evolution over the ages as a learning process. During this
time it learned this intuitive physics, i.e. mathematics and
Le 30-juil.-05, à 17:18, Aditya Varun Chadha a écrit :
I think Mazer has put this across quite nicely, so I pause here.
I agree with you and Jesse Mazer. Except that Jesse points on a
speculation on the observer-moments, where I find enough to speculate
on the truth on the comp
Le 30-juil.-05, à 08:53, Lee Corbin a écrit :
When in the laboratory we examine the concepts mice
have of the world, we can easily see their limitations.
What would we think of mice who attempted to found all
of reality on mouse observer moments?
Give them time! Mice will probably discover
Hi Lee;
Im dont know. Im in two minds now. I think my own objection to Sam Johnsons
'refutation' is based on a very strict definition of knowledge which entails
some notion of certainty. To be only 99% certain is not enough on this
definition to know something. Its a little sceptical isnt it?
Aditya writes
At the risk of barging in once again,
Oh, please forget about all that! No one should apologize for it. Ever.
I (Lee) had written
When in the laboratory we examine the concepts mice
have of the world, we can easily see their limitations.
What would we think of mice who
Title: Message
AP: Any two deterministic, reversible automata with state space ofthe
same cardinality are isomorphic, no?
BH: If so, wouldn't that involve an isomorphism whose information
contentispotentially the same size as the state space
itself?AP: I am not sure how the
-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 12:29 AM
To: Lee Corbin
Subject: Re: What We Can Know About the World
On 29-Jul-05, you wrote:
Jesse writes
I meant that your perceptions have physiological causes
because
12 matches
Mail list logo
