On 23 Jul 2011, at 03:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:26 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Comp embraces the non computable. If you study the work you will
understand that both matter and mind arise from the non computable,
with comp.
See the second part of sane04. Ask
On 23 Jul 2011, at 03:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jul 22, 8:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
That would just mean that the neuronal level is too much high for
being the substitution level. Better to chose the DNA and metabolic
level.
Right. If you make tweaked real cells out
On 22 Jul 2011, at 17:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Unless you believe in zombie, the point is that there *is* enough
phenomenological qualia and subjectivity, and contingencies, in the
realm of numbers. The diffrent 1-views (the phenomenology of mind, of
matter, etc.) are given by the modal
On Jul 23, 12:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/22/2011 8:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Where does the badness come from? The afferent neurons?
It comes from the diminishing number of real neurons participating in
the network, or, more likely, the unfavorable ration of neurons
On Jul 23, 12:21 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Forensically?? Do we need a Weinberg-English dictionary?
I love forensically for this. It implies tracing a chain of cause
backwards, in a clinical, detached, bloodless way. With each step of
the regression, possibilities are narrowed
On Jul 22, 10:55 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm saying that if you kept randomly replaced neurons it would
eventually look like dementia or some other progressive brain wasting
disease.
Functionally equivalent means functionally equivalence. You
are effectively saying
On Jul 22, 11:05 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you positing a universal substance of resemblance? How does it
work?
No. I am proposing that things have properties, as an objective
fact,and that different things can have the same properties,
also as an objective fact.
On Jul 23, 2:35 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 22, 6:25 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But that's contradicting your assumption that the pegs are transparent
to the neural communication:
If the living
cells are able to talk to each other well through the
On Jul 23, 4:52 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Muscles aren't moved by neurons, muscles move themselves in sympathy
with neuronal motivation.
Says who?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this
On Jul 23, 1:27 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 23, 12:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/22/2011 8:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Where does the badness come from? The afferent neurons?
It comes from the diminishing number of real neurons
On Jul 23, 5:41 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
It embraces it at many places. First the first person indeterminacy
leads to the taking into account of uncomputable sequences in the
first person experiences. Just iterate the Washington-Moscow
experience n times. There will be 2^n
On Jul 23, 5:53 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
A sculpture (non moving, dead)? Or a zombie? (behavior is preserved)
I would not call it 'behavior' unless that is understood to exclude
agency. I'd just call it mechanism. A zombie also is both too somatic
and too necrotic a term.
I just thought about this statement:
He might just play the game of pretending to want to keep control to see
how ludicrous and futile this is.
Well, I'd like to contradict this. It's futile and ludicrous if taken as the
ultimate truth. Being and becoming is beyond control. But on a relative
On Jul 23, 6:49 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Jul 2011, at 17:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I believe in zombies as far as it would be possible to simulate a
human presence with a YouTube flip book as I described, or a to
simulate a human brain digitally which would be
On 23.07.2011 18:05 Craig Weinberg said the following:
I was thinking about how a sperm resembles a brain and spinal cord
but that the egg is more like a microcosm of a world. Conception
plays out metaphorically as a miniature sensorimotive self entering a
single life as a sphere which
On Jul 23, 11:11 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 22, 11:05 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you positing a universal substance of resemblance? How does it
work?
No. I am proposing that things have properties, as an objective
fact,and that different things can
On Jul 23, 11:40 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 23, 2:35 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Think of them like sock puppet/bots multiplying in a closed social
network. If you have 100 actual friends on a social network and their
accounts are progressively replaced
On Jul 23, 11:43 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 23, 4:52 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Muscles aren't moved by neurons, muscles move themselves in sympathy
with neuronal motivation.
Says who?
That's my theory. It's not as if your neurons climb into your
On Jul 23, 12:02 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 23, 1:27 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 23, 12:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/22/2011 8:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Where does the badness come from? The afferent neurons?
It
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Jul 23, 11:43 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 23, 4:52 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Muscles aren't moved by neurons, muscles move themselves in sympathy
with neuronal
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Definitely. Inorganic mega-molecules can do amazing things. Enjoying a
steak dinner isn't one of them though.
This is just racism.
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 7/22/2011 10:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:30 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 7/22/2011 2:11 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Stephen P.
On Jul 23, 5:23 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 23, 5:53 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
A sculpture (non moving, dead)? Or a zombie? (behavior is preserved)
I would not call it 'behavior' unless that is understood to exclude
agency.
Does the presence
On Jul 23, 2:04 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
And they apparently sympathize with the desires of electrons, as Galvani
discovered with frog legs.
That's a good point. It's still the muscle tissue contracting itself
even though it's no longer part of a living frog. I wonder how dead
On Jul 23, 5:52 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 23, 11:06 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 22, 10:55 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm saying that if you kept randomly replaced neurons it would
eventually look like dementia or some
On Jul 23, 6:05 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 23, 11:11 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 22, 11:05 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you positing a universal substance of resemblance? How does it
work?
No. I am proposing that
On Jul 23, 6:17 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 23, 11:40 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 23, 2:35 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Think of them like sock puppet/bots multiplying in a closed social
network. If you have 100 actual
On Jul 23, 6:22 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 23, 11:43 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 23, 4:52 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Muscles aren't moved by neurons, muscles move themselves in sympathy
with neuronal motivation.
Says
On Jul 23, 6:36 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 23, 12:02 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 23, 1:27 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 23, 12:14 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/22/2011 8:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jul 23, 7:04 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Does the presence or absence of agency make a visible difference?
I wouldn't say a visible difference necessarily, but in a difference
in the overall sense that the aggregate behaviors make. It depends on
how familiar you are with the normal
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Jul 23, 2:04 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
And they apparently sympathize with the desires of electrons, as Galvani
discovered with frog legs.
That's a good point. It's still the muscle tissue
On Jul 23, 7:06 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 23, 5:52 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 23, 11:06 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
There are robust counterexamples to that. I can relace an iron key
with a brasskey. The material
isn't important in that
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Jul 23, 7:06 pm, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 23, 5:52 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 23, 11:06 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
There are robust counterexamples to that.
On 7/23/2011 3:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 7/22/2011 10:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 3:30 AM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 06:37:16AM -0700, 1Z wrote:
You are playing on two meanings of fact; that something is not
known until time T does not mean it pops into existence at time
T. Truth is not existence.
Existence is a muddy concept. Truth (even relative truth) is certainly
a possible
On Jul 23, 9:50 pm, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
My own position is that whatever is really real, it is probably
completely unknowable (like Kant's noumenon). We can only know about
phenomena. This leads me to the radical proposal that perhaps all of
phenomena can be
On 7/23/2011 9:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If you want to formulate block time without reifying spacetime, then
just consider block time a collection of events separated by certain
distances and directions from eachother. You may be right that
ultimately this is all related to a theory of
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Hi Jesse,
On 7/22/2011 8:03 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Hi Jason,
None of those papers address the concern of narratability that
On 7/23/2011 11:25 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Jesse,
On 7/22/2011 8:03 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
Hi Jesse,
We seem to be talking past each other. I am thinking about the notion
of time as a dimension and its origin and implications. You seem to just
assume its existence. I ask why?.
That's not how I
On Jul 23, 9:30 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, but earlier you said functionally identical = materially identical.
While certainly there are differences between brass and iron which mean they
will not function identically in every role, in this case either can serve
in the
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 7/23/2011 9:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If you want to formulate block time without reifying spacetime, then just
consider block time a collection of events separated by certain distances
and directions from
On Jul 24, 12:05 am, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Substantivalism doesn't treat spacetime as a substance in the sense of
necessarily being made up of discrete grainy bits (which is all that the
gamma ray prediction was meant to test,
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Jul 24, 12:05 am, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Substantivalism doesn't treat spacetime as a substance in the sense of
necessarily being made up of discrete grainy bits (which is all that the
gamma
44 matches
Mail list logo
