On Apr 29, 2:26 am, russell standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
What extra information do you have in mind? I'd gladly update my
priors with anything I can lay my hands on.
So changes to neural structure and the concentrations of various
chemicals within neurons and around neural synapses
On 30 Apr 2009, at 18:29, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Apr 2009, at 23:30, Jesse Mazer wrote:
But I'm not convinced that the basic Olympia machine he describes
doesn't already have a complex causal structure--the causal
structure would be in the way different troughs
On 30 Apr 2009, at 19:39, Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Apr 2009, at 15:49, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Marchal wrote
That is weird.
I think that you believe that a rock implements computations, because
you believe a computation can be decomposed in tiny computations,
On 01 May 2009, at 17:02, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2009/5/1 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
That is, you can't say that the rock
implements one computation but not another.
I don't think it implements any computations. I could accept some
tiny
apparition of tiny pieces of of tiny
On 01 May 2009, at 19:36, Jesse Mazer wrote:
I found a paper on the Mandelbrot set and computability, I
understand very little but maybe Bruno would be able to follow it:
http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.CC/0604003
The same author has a shorter outline or slides for a presentation
on this
On 01 May 2009, at 08:53, Kim Jones wrote:
Perhaps atheism is necessary as a stepping stone to a more correct
theology?
Ah ah, I see that you want to provoke me :)
Hard to say, I am discovering that many atheist websites adopt a new
definition of atheism, making it a form of
6 matches
Mail list logo
