On 19 Aug 2012, at 21:14, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 18 Aug 2012, at 17:55, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 15 Aug 2012, at
Hi Alberto G. Corona
Yes, the is/ought dilemma is embedded in our culture.
These days (as always and as everywhere) the is people are
the conservatives, the ought people are the liberals, and
never the twain shall meet.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/21/2012
Leibniz would say, If
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
Leibniz's education was for the Law, not for philosophy,
and accordingly his ethics and theology are said to be
theories of jurisprudence. I believe he wrote a book
on jurisprudence.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-ethics/
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
Roger, It would be these days, however both groups obey the same ought
rules. what changes is the whole which each one refer to; For example
liberals usually exclude unborn children, and put any minority in the world
above any else in the top of his whole (some put wildlife above humanity),
while
Hi Alberto G. Corona
I suppose I opened a can of worms; I really don't want to
get into a political argument, because never the twain shall meet.
They speak completely different languages. Two completely different views,
two different tribes always at war with one another.
Because of the
Hi Stephen P. King
Yes, what a mess.
Crap happens and then you die. How's that for an agenda ?
That's why Christians pray and both love and fear God (reverence).
Which was Leibniz's motivation for optimisticallhy surmising
that although crap must happen because the world must be contingent
Hi Stephen P. King
Leibniz did not have an overall theory of the universe such
as seems to be wanted here. The monadology is not an overall
theory of the universe, instead it is moreorless like a living
ecology, where the parts (monads) compete and collaborate with each
other through the
Hi meekerdb
It wasn't me. Someone else here posted that statement (that Bruno and Stephen
say everything wrongly).
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/21/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything
could function.
- Receiving the following content
Hi Richard Ruquist
I also believe in science. But if you're trying to trash religion
with science, science hasn't a clue nor a tool nor the proper
concepts to even begin with the task. Science does not know
what the meaning of anything is. Period.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/21/2012
Hi guys,
Neither CYM's nor strings physically exist-- instead, they represent things
that exist.
Anything in equation form is itself nonphysical, although the equations
might describe something physical.
For example, if I live at 23 Main street, 23 Main Street is not my house,
it is my address.
On 8/21/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
To Idealists, the real is the idea or concept of a thing,
The thing as it it appears to us is a phenomenon.
This inversion of common sense was made by Leibniz
in order to get rid of the mind-body problem. There's
no problem really if
On 8/21/2012 8:07 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,
According to string theory themonads do not only see the external
world through the eyes of the supreme monad
(or CPU). Rather in string theory each individual, discrete, and
distinct monad sees the entire universe instantly but without
Roger,
You are mistaken. The universe is based on physical laws despite the
existence of a supernatural, which I take to be based in the collective set
of monads.
The way in which the monads manifest the physical laws and constants of
nature is a bonified subject of science, just are the study of
Hi Bruno,
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Aug 2012, at 21:14, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 18 Aug 2012, at 17:55, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Aug
Dear Roger,
(re: Brent's post below) Brent wrote it superbly. You, with your immense
educational thesaurus (lit, thinking, writing skills etc.) 'occupied' this
list now for some weeks in the controversy by a (I wish I had a better
distinction) religious(?) faith-based mindset vs. the well
In this post I present an example of a problem that we can (quite easily)
solve, yet a computer can't, even in principle, thus showing that our
intelligence transcends that of a computer. It doesn't necessarily show that
human intelligence transcend computer intelligence, since the human may have
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
In this post I present an example of a problem that we can (quite easily)
solve, yet a computer can't, even in principle, thus showing that our
intelligence transcends that of a computer. [...]
Is the following statement
It's a simple logical paradox, an AI could play the same game by asking:
Is the following statement true? 'This statement can't be confirmed to
be true solely by utilizing a human brain'.
Saibal
Citeren benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com:
In this post I present an example of a
This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being.
The Computer
On 8/21/2012 9:54 AM, benjayk wrote:
In this post I present an example of a problem that we can (quite easily)
solve, yet a computer can't, even in principle, thus showing that our
intelligence transcends that of a
Hi Roger,
I answer your many post in one, by pity for the virtual mail boxes.
On 20 Aug 2012, at 11:29, Roger wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
According to the Bible, belief is a product of faith or trust, and
that trust
does not come from you, it is a gift from God.
We have nothing to do with
On 20 Aug 2012, at 15:01, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
In evolutionary terms, is and ougth reflect the double nature of a
social being which has not lost is individuality, as individual and
as a member of a bigger whole. Both are in tension. The social whole
is also in our instinctive
On 21 Aug 2012, at 13:03, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
I also believe in science. But if you're trying to trash religion
with science, science hasn't a clue nor a tool nor the proper
concepts to even begin with the task. Science does not know
what the meaning of anything is. Period.
On 8/21/2012 9:40 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Hi Bruno,
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Aug 2012, at 21:14, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal
Dear Benjayk,
Isn't this a form of the same argument that Penrose made?
On 8/21/2012 12:54 PM, benjayk wrote:
In this post I present an example of a problem that we can (quite easily)
solve, yet a computer can't, even in principle, thus showing that our
intelligence transcends that of a
On 8/21/2012 8:12 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,
You are mistaken. The universe is based on physical laws despite the
existence of a supernatural, which I take to be based in the
collective set of monads.
Hi Richard,
Please calm down a bit and understand that it is not possible for a
String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma
already found at the LHC and several other sites.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 8/21/2012 12:19 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/21/2012 4:10 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi guys,
Neither
On 21 Aug 2012, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote:
This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being.
The Computer
LOL.
Of course, Clark is right, you should add consistently before
confirmed, to avoid the refutation of a human claiming confirming that
sentence. Or put consistent
Hear Hear!
On 8/21/2012 2:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
All religions which believes that religion does not apply to machine
will remain stuck on earth, the others will conquer the physical universe.
--
Onward!
Stephen
Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.
~ Francis Bacon
--
You
On 8/21/2012 3:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
String theory predicts the viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma
already found at the LHC and several other sites.
Hi Richard,
Could you link some sources on this?
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net
Steinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC. arXiv:nucl-ex/09031471,
2009.
Kovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting Quantum
Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 8/21/2012 3:58 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Steinberg P. Soft Physics from RHIC to the LHC.
arXiv:nucl-ex/09031471, 2009.
Kovtum PK, Son DT Starinets AO. Viscosity in Strongly Interacting
Quantum
Field Theories from Black Hole Physics. arXiv:hep-th/0405231.
Good! Now to see if
meekerdb wrote:
This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being.
The Computer
He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal).
But it can't confirm it as well (how could it, since we as humans can't
confirm it and what he knows about us derives from what we
Stephen P. King wrote:
Dear Benjayk,
Isn't this a form of the same argument that Penrose made?
I guess so, yet it seems more specific. At least it was more obvious to me
than the usual arguments against AI. I haven't really read anything by
Penrose, except maybe some excerpts,
On 8/21/2012 2:24 PM, benjayk wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being.
The Computer
He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal).
But it can't confirm it as well (how could it, since we as humans can't
confirm it and what he knows
meekerdb wrote:
On 8/21/2012 2:24 PM, benjayk wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being.
The Computer
He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal).
But it can't confirm it as well (how could it, since we as humans can't
On 8/21/2012 2:52 PM, benjayk wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 8/21/2012 2:24 PM, benjayk wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being.
The Computer
He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal).
But it can't confirm it as well (how could
meekerdb wrote:
On 8/21/2012 2:52 PM, benjayk wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 8/21/2012 2:24 PM, benjayk wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being.
The Computer
He might be right in saying that (See my response to Saibal).
But it can't confirm it
On 8/21/2012 3:26 PM, benjayk wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 8/21/2012 2:52 PM, benjayk wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
On 8/21/2012 2:24 PM, benjayk wrote:
meekerdb wrote:
This sentence cannot be confirmed to be true by a human being.
The Computer
He might be right in saying that (See my response to
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:18 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
It is true as well. We can even confirm it to ourselves.
'This statement can't be confirmed to be true solely by utilizing a human
brain'. We can see its true, but whatever knows this, can't (solely) be the
brain
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:52 AM, benjayk
benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote:
Well, that is you imagining to be a computer. But program an actual
computer that concludes this without it being hard-coded into it. All it
could do is repeat the opinion you feed it, or disagree with you,
Stephan,
I solved the landscape problem by assuming that each monad was distinct
consistent with the astronomical observations that the hyperfine constant
varied monotonically across the universe.
Richard
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On
41 matches
Mail list logo
