On 05 Oct 2012, at 11:04, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Dear john:
2012/10/4 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com Wrote:
Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid tinkerer, it had
over 3 billion years to work on the problem but it couldn't even
come up
Hi Stephen P. King
Many thanks, Stephan !
I should have known it before, but
double-aspect and/or dual-aspect theories
of mind aren't afraid of using the word
subjectivity.
Now all they have to do is find out
who or what is the subjectr of subjectivity !
Roger Clough,
Hi John Clark
Are you perhaps looking for a way to create order (biological structure)
out of chaos ? That is what life does. It reverses time's arrow to
extract the energy necessary to live and grow from a disorderd environment.
This means creating ordered structure out of a chaotic
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
You left out the guy who puts together the pieces.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/5/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
Receiver: everything-list
Time:
Along the theme of a dual-aspect theory of reality,
I recommend the book
Mind and Cosmos:Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of
Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Nagel, Thomas.
It actually has little to do with Darwin but rather discusses how
consciousness, cognition, etc. cannot not be
Hi Richard Ruquist
I appreciate your suggestion, but I am already convinced,
and have other sources besides that.
What I'm looking for is a book which gives the central
mechanism of abiogenesis, the production of living
matter from nonliving matter. If indded there is
such a thing.
Roger
Proteins remember the past to predict the future
October 5, 2012
[+]
Motor Proteins (credit: Ccl005/Wikimedia Commons)
The most efficient machines remember what has happened to them, and
use that memory to predict what the future holds.
That is the conclusion of a theoretical study by Susanne
On Friday, October 5, 2012 7:05:06 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
So it is reasonable to define life as that which can produce order
out of chaos *. Since at least higher living beings
also possess consciousness, my grand hypothesis is that
life = consciousness = awareness = producing order
I recommend: Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged From Matter by
Terrence Deacon, a professor of neuroscience and anthropology at the
University of California, Berkeley
LN
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 07:33:53 -0400, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
I appreciate your
Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger,
Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that
sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not.
They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of the mind-body problem.
It is still Aristotle theory variants, unaware of the
On 05 Oct 2012, at 13:33, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
I appreciate your suggestion, but I am already convinced,
and have other sources besides that.
What I'm looking for is a book which gives the central
mechanism of abiogenesis, the production of living
matter from nonliving
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
To paraphrase Carl, 'First, you have to invent the universe.'
You want to know why there is something rather than nothing and Science
can't provide a good answer to that, but depending on exactly what you mean
by nothing it can
On 10/5/2012 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Richard, Stephen, Roger,
Dual aspect theories are plausibly incompatible with comp. In that
sense Craig is more coherent, but Stephen, and Chalmers, seems not.
They avoid the comp necessary reformulation of the mind-body problem.
It is still
On 10/5/2012 12:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Many thanks, Stephan !
I should have known it before, but
double-aspect and/or dual-aspect theories
Deacon's 600 page book
(http://www.amazon.com/Incomplete-Nature-Mind-Emerged-Matter/dp/0393049914)
flushes out the philosophical outlines of Nagel's much shorter book
(http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception).
I found a fairly complete summary of Deacon's book on
On 10/5/2012 2:04 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Dear john:
2012/10/4 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com
Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com mailto:agocor...@gmail.com Wrote:
Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid tinkerer, it had
over 3
Hi Stephen,
Yeah, I was wandering there a bit. Just still not used to the irony of
altered states being used in an argument that leaves unsaid the elephant in
the room.
But I guess if we want something with set and point, this might also be
your cup of tea, if you're not already familiar with
On 10/5/2012 2:22 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Deacon's 600 page book
(http://www.amazon.com/Incomplete-Nature-Mind-Emerged-Matter/dp/0393049914)
flushes out the philosophical outlines of Nagel's much shorter book
(http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception).
I found a
On 10/5/2012 2:41 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Yeah, I was wandering there a bit. Just still not used to the irony of
altered states being used in an argument that leaves unsaid the
elephant in the room.
But I guess if we want something with set and point, this might also
Russell,
you seem to be restricted by OUR model-items, so far discovered. I call
'magic' the so far undiscovered, which - however - may become known later
on. Then it is not magic.
It would be the last thing to engage with you in discussing AL, but it
seems you consider a limited one:
*RS: (ALife
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h--Gei6yYvM
Pay attention at time 5:10 and on!
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you saying that Darwin has an explanation for the origin of order?
Yes, mutation and natural selection.
No. Natural selection is a type of order. Mutation describes a deviation
from an established order which
On Friday, October 5, 2012 12:58:14 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
To paraphrase Carl, 'First, you have to invent the universe.'
You want to know why there is something rather than nothing and Science
can't provide a
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
You left out the guy who puts together the pieces.
So if the pieces just happened to fall into the right place
spontaneously the car would not work?
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 2:04 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Dear john:
2012/10/4 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com Wrote:
Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid tinkerer, it had
over
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 03:58:13PM -0400, John Mikes wrote:
Russell,
you seem to be restricted by OUR model-items, so far discovered. I call
'magic' the so far undiscovered, which - however - may become known later
on. Then it is not magic.
It would be the last thing to engage with you in
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 07:33:53AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
I appreciate your suggestion, but I am already convinced,
and have other sources besides that.
What I'm looking for is a book which gives the central
mechanism of abiogenesis, the production of living
Hi Folks,
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.4339.pdf
Mathematical Foundations of Consciousness
Willard L. Miranker
http://arxiv.org/find/math/1/au:+Miranker_W/0/1/0/all/0/1,Gregg J.
Zuckerman http://arxiv.org/find/math/1/au:+Zuckerman_G/0/1/0/all/0/1
(Submitted on 23 Oct 2008)
On 10/5/2012 4:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 2:04 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Dear john:
2012/10/4 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:32:21PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Do we have any reason to believe ideas reproduce with variation and
then those that reproduce most successfully rise to consciousness?
THAT would be a Darwinian theory of consciousness.
Brent
Dennett's pandemonium theory would seem
On 10/5/2012 5:15 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 07:33:53AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
I appreciate your suggestion, but I am already convinced,
and have other sources besides that.
What I'm looking for is a book which gives the central
On 10/5/2012 6:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:32:21PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Do we have any reason to believe ideas reproduce with variation and
then those that reproduce most successfully rise to consciousness?
THAT would be a Darwinian theory of consciousness.
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:59:11PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/5/2012 6:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:32:21PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Do we have any reason to believe ideas reproduce with variation and
then those that reproduce most successfully rise to
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 4:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 2:04 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Dear john:
2012/10/4 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On 10/5/2012 8:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 4:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 8:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 4:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 10/5/2012 9:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 8:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
On 9/29/2012 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Indeed. I think 17 is intrinsically a prime number in all possible
realities.
It is not a reality in a world that only has 16 objects in it. I can
come up with
On 10/6/2012 1:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/29/2012 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Indeed. I think 17 is intrinsically a prime number in all
possible realities.
39 matches
Mail list logo
