On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:46:55 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 5:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On
- Have received the following content -
Sender: Robert Karl Stonjek
Receiver: Psychiatry-Research,Cognitive NeuroScience,Mind and Brain
Time: 2013-03-01, 00:21:49
Subject: [Mind and Brain] News: Brain-to-brain interface allows transmission
oftactile and motor information between
I was going to send that article to annoy Craig but then decided to leave
him in alone :)
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
- Have received the following content -
*Sender:* Robert Karl Stonjek ston...@ozemail.com.au
*Receiver:*
On 28 Feb 2013, at 14:58, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/28/2013 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:
You are assuming that justification comes from logic; and indeed
it is too much to expect from such a weak source. I look for such
justification as can
On 28 Feb 2013, at 19:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/28/2013 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40,
On 28 Feb 2013, at 19:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:03:40 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:
On
On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not
Y then X is
On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either.
You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know
On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It
On 3/1/2013 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am pretty sure that x + 0 =
x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc.
I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x.
Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense with such
On 3/1/2013 3:09 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:46:55 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 5:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday,
On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:23:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either.
On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:39:05 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 3:09 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:46:55 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 5:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On
On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not at all
indicated
from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory experiences of
shapes.
Can you dispute this?
Sure. Can you prove it?
Prove what, that
As I observed previously, there was a fork in the road
of the path of science back in the 17th century at which,
given the Cartesian choice, Newton considered reality
to consist of the physical-- which means entities
such as matter which are extended in space.
Leibniz, on the other hand,
On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:58:34 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not at all
indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory
experiences of shapes. Can you dispute this?
On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:28, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am
pretty sure that x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc.
I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x.
Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and
On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:23:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have no way of
On 3/1/2013 8:17 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:58:34 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not at all
indicated from math or computation, and derives solely
On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:41:52 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:23:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent
On 3/1/2013 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120, but we never need 10^120
+ 1.
But physics is no more assumed in the TOE derived from comp.
I'll bet you've never needed to calculate 10^120 + 1 in the world whose TOE is derived
from
On 3/1/2013 11:03 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If we have some written characters is it possible to categorize them optically, but
these categories don't lead to discovery of any phonetic information.
Sure they do. Just try http://www.naturalreaders.com/howto.php?referp=mainbar
Likewise,
On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:10:30 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 11:03 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If we have some written characters is it possible to categorize them
optically, but
these categories don't lead to discovery of any phonetic information.
Sure they do. Just try
On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what order, they
are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.
Repeated assertions aren't evidence.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what
order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.
Repeated assertions aren't evidence.
Thinking about how information content of a message has an inversely
proportionate relationship with the capacity of sender and receiver to
synchronize with each other.
Think of being in a foreign country, seeing a fellow foreigner who is about
your same age. There is:
- An implicit
On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what
order,
they are still always going to be empty, mindless
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
All that matters is that we understand that there is no presentation
quality to a file. Presentation is 100% in the interpreter.
And a computer can be and often is the interpreter.
You are really saying that we
On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what
On 3/1/2013 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It doesn't matter how
On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:37:41 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
All that matters is that we understand that there is no presentation
quality to a file. Presentation is 100% in the interpreter.
And a
On Friday, March 1, 2013 7:47:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:20
On 3/1/2013 4:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together
or in what order, they are still
Thinking about how information content of a message
Big mistake. Information is never contained with but
exactly one exception, an envelope.
I made this point with Jesper Hoffmeyer regarding a
statement in his book Biosemiotics, that information
is represented but not contained in that
On 3/1/2013 4:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 7:47:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1,
On 3/1/2013 5:04 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/1/2013 4:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put
On 3/1/2013 5:27 PM, William R. Buckley wrote:
Thinking about how information content of a message
Big mistake. Information is never contained with but
exactly one exception, an envelope.
I made this point with Jesper Hoffmeyer regarding a
statement in his book Biosemiotics, that information
And therein do you see the arbitrariness of either choice.
The universe is subjective, not objective.
Read on semiotic theory as it will give much enlightenment
on this issue, that is *meaning* versus *information*
The fact that the interpreter can interpret means that the
interpreter already
On 3/1/2013 8:39 PM, William R. Buckley wrote:
And therein do you see the arbitrariness of either choice.
The universe is subjective, not objective.
Is that just your opinion...or is it objectively true.
Read on semiotic theory as it will give much enlightenment
on this issue, that is
40 matches
Mail list logo
