On 12 Sep 2011, at 22:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
This sounds like a rejection of the mind-brain identity thesis,
which is
what functionalism / computationalism do. (Jason Resch)
It's a rejection of a simplistic version of the mind-brain identity
thesis in favor of my own
On 12 Sep 2011, at 21:07, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 9/12/2011 8:06 AM Jason Resch said the following:
...
What about of dumb water molecules, can they not form a wave?
Complex things can result from very simple rules, when you have a
huge number of those simple things interacting with each
On 12 Sep 2011, at 22:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
To say that complex things can result from very simple rules is true
enough, but it's circular reasoning that distracts from the relevant
questions: What are 'rules' and where do they come from?
You are the one assuming some physical reality.
On Sep 13, 12:52 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
To say that complex things can result from very simple rules is true
enough, but it's circular reasoning that distracts from the relevant
questions: What
On 9/13/2011 12:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If it was completely determined by other things, then it's existence
would be redundant.
Which is why it doesn't exist. Unless you just mean that feeling that I want what I want
and I don't know why.
Brent
The fact that it is influenced by
Bruno,
As I have already mentioned, I am not that far to follow your theorem. I
will do it presumably the next year.
I have been working for the last ten year with engineers and my
consideration is so far at the engineering level. After all, if we know
something, we should be able to employ
On Sep 13, 3:44 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Sep 2011, at 05:29, Craig Weinberg wrote:
This view of the psyche as being the inevitable result of sheer
biochemical momentum is not even remotely plausible to me. It denies
any input/output between the mind and the outside
On Sep 13, 3:53 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Sep 2011, at 22:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
This sounds like a rejection of the mind-brain identity thesis,
which is
what functionalism / computationalism do. (Jason Resch)
It's a rejection of a simplistic version of the
On Sep 13, 11:03 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Water molecules aren't necessarily dumb, and they don't necessarily
'form a wave'. A wave is just one sensorimotive interpretation of what
water or
On Sep 13, 11:28 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Sep 2011, at 22:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
To say that complex things can result from very simple rules is true
enough, but it's circular reasoning that distracts from the relevant
questions: What are 'rules' and where do
On Sep 13, 3:23 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/13/2011 12:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It's easy to assume that it helps, just as it's easy for me to assume
that we have free will. If we don't need our conscious mind to make
decisions, then we certainly don't need the
On Sep 13, 3:24 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/13/2011 12:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If it was completely determined by other things, then it's existence
would be redundant.
Which is why it doesn't exist. Unless you just mean that feeling that I
want what I want
and I
On 9/13/2011 4:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The rules are at bottom the laws of physics.
That doesn't mean anything. The laws of physics are the rules. That's
why I say it's circular reasoning. I ask you what is a rule, and you
say it's at the bottom of laws, but laws are just another word for
On 9/13/2011 4:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 13, 3:23 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/13/2011 12:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It's easy to assume that it helps, just as it's easy for me to assume
that we have free will. If we don't need our conscious mind to make
On 9/13/2011 4:26 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 13, 3:24 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/13/2011 12:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If it was completely determined by other things, then it's existence
would be redundant.
Which is why it doesn't exist. Unless you just mean that
On 9/13/2011 6:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
You think that because consciousness is a mystery, it must not involve anything we can
explain or understand. Many mysteries have existed in the past and been answered. This
is a unique time where our knowledge can explain so much of ordinary
On 9/13/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Sep 2011, at 22:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
To say that complex things can result from very simple rules is true
enough, but it's circular reasoning that distracts from the relevant
questions: What are 'rules' and where do they come from?
You
On Sep 13, 9:25 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Everything that can exist does, for there is no meta-rule prohibiting that
object's existence.
I would call that a hasty generalization. Let's say it's the year
1066. Do cell phones exist in England? Is there a meta-rule
prohibiting
On Sep 13, 9:38 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/13/2011 4:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The rules are at bottom the laws of physics.
That doesn't mean anything. The laws of physics are the rules. That's
why I say it's circular reasoning. I ask you what is a rule, and you
say
On Sep 13, 9:51 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/13/2011 4:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 13, 3:23 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/13/2011 12:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It's easy to assume that it helps, just as it's easy for me to assume
that
On Sep 13, 9:54 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/13/2011 4:26 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 13, 3:24 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/13/2011 12:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If it was completely determined by other things, then it's existence
would be
On 9/13/2011 10:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:38 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/13/2011 4:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The rules are at bottom the laws of physics.
That doesn't mean anything. The laws of physics are the rules. That's
why I say it's circular
On 9/13/2011 10:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 13, 9:54 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/13/2011 4:26 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 13, 3:24 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.netwrote:
On 9/13/2011 12:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If it was completely determined by other
23 matches
Mail list logo
