In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brent Meeker writes:
On 31-Jul-05, you wrote:
[-Original Message-Tom Caylor wrote:] May I offer the following quote
as a potential catalyst for Bruno and Colin:
...
Our scientific evidentiary process is based on the fallacy of the assumed
existence of
I thought this article might be useful!
Stephen
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/objectivity/bogusskepticism.htm
The Objectivity of Science
Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Skepticism
by Rochus Boerner
The progress of science depends on a finely tuned balance between
open-mindedness
To the quote of Lee's remark:
I would try Vernumft (which may as well be similarly
inaccurate for 'consciousness'). There were some
German speaking souls(!) who used it quite effectively
G.
I try for'mind':the mentality aspect of the living
complexity which says not much more if 'mentality'
is
Aditya writes
[LC]:
Well, Russell did also say that OMs and events seemed to him about as
alike as chalk and cheese. It's starting to look that way:
So, alas, it seems that the firmly established meanings of
event and observer moment can't really be said to be at
all the same thing.
--- Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell writes
John M. wrote
To Russell's 4 coordinates of (any?) event: how
come
the occurrence (event!) of a 'good idea' in my
mind -
(mind: not a thing, not a place, not
time-restricted)
should have t,x,y,z coordinates?
Hi Alan,
Thank you very much for making my point even more clear(*).
You know my theory (which is just the classical machine's theory) has been named machine biology, and then machine theology. It is my thesis director in France who asked me to use the term machine psychology instead of
Hi John,
Le 01-août-05, à 16:57, John M a écrit :
Also simulating menatlity from computer
expressions seems reversing the fact that in comp (AI
etc.) the computer science attempts to simulate
certain and very limited items we already discovered
from our mind.
Except that since Turing,
Hi Hal, thank you for your answer, but I've little more to ask :
Le Lundi 01 Août 2005 05:32, Hal Finney a écrit :
Quentin Anciaux writes:
In all of these discussion, it is really this point that annoy me... What
is the calculation ? Is it a physical process ? Obviously a calculation
need
[Col replies---]
Tom, in your very eloquent fashion you have touched upon the essence
of my approach to the issue of a theory of everything.
I need to make sure that everyone knows that the very eloquent words
are not mine, but those of H.W.B. Joseph in the reference
Quentin Anciaux writes:
Le Lundi 01 Août 2005 05:32, Hal Finney a écrit :
I am generally of the school that considers that calculations can be
treated as abstract or formal objects, that they can exist without a
physical computer existing to run them.
I completely agree with that... but I
Hal writes
I did mention the question of whether a given calculation
instantiated a given OM. Maybe instantiate is not the
right word there. I meant to consider the question of whether
the first calculation added to the measure of the information
structure corresponding to the OM.
I think
I commiserate with you. I finally left FOR because of the moderation
policy - that, and the endless waffle that would have been prevented
had more technical language been possible in the first place.
Anything of substance seems to get ported to the everything list
eventually anyway!
Cheers
On
John M:
snip:)
To Searle's book-title: it implies that we already
HAVE discovered what the 'mind' is. Well, we did not.
At least not to the satisfaction of the advanced
thinking community.
John M
I think the name was a play the name of another book
The discovery of the mind by Bruno
I'm sure Alan is just doing his best to keep everyone on point with the
scientific concepts raised in FOR, but it is a little strange. For
instance, the dramatic culmination of the FOR is the OP theory, which
of course is a speculation, based in science, for a possible
explanation of of the
Lee Corbin wrote:
Hal writes
I did mention the question of whether a given calculation
instantiated a given OM. Maybe instantiate is not the
right word there. I meant to consider the question of whether
the first calculation added to the measure of the information
structure corresponding to
15 matches
Mail list logo
