On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know what you mean by any of this. The question is whether my
actions are entirely determined by antecedents, or not.
I see the question as being how there could be a such thing as actions which
are 'yours'
On 03 Mar 2013, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/2/2013 11:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
So you admit that what you say contradicts the fact that you are
intentionally saying it?
Intentional, as far as I can understand its use in philosophy, is
more or less equivalent to mental or
On 04 Mar 2013, at 02:09, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 4:00 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Richard, a very good paper you have there. The Mindspace recording
mechanism
you invoked sounds exactly like the Hindu akashic records feature
to their
religion. For people like
On 04 Mar 2013, at 03:19, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/3/2013 8:17 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Well if what emerges from comp is not physics, then physics refutes
comp.
So that means that you can use physics to say what comp must emerge.
what is proposed is that both comp and physics are
Is a red shift a possible effect of Lag Synch in the limit of many
pair-wise coupled chaotic systems??
http://144.206.159.178/ft/847/47281/13813187.pdf
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
As I've said before it's important not to confuse levels, a simulated
flame won't burn your computer but it will burn a simulated object.
No, that argument is bogus. There is only one physical level.
HOW THE HELL DO YOU
In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120, but we
never need 10^120 + 1.
When we use the known laws of Quantum Mechanics to calculate the strength
of Dark Energy it gives us a value that is ABOUT 10^120 times larger than
the value we actually observe. So a successful Theory
Hi
Here is a fairly brief, clear, account of Leibniz's phil of mind written by
himself.
Probably best to print it, but Adobe won't read it, so you\
can use the print icron to the upper right hand corner of the page.
Landscape orientation works best.
On Monday, March 4, 2013 11:06:46 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
As I've said before it's important not to confuse levels, a simulated
flame won't burn your computer but it will burn a simulated object.
No, that
On Monday, March 4, 2013 7:17:58 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I don't know what you mean by any of this. The question is whether my
actions are entirely determined by antecedents, or not.
I see
On 3/4/2013 4:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 03 Mar 2013, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/2/2013 11:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
So you admit that what you say contradicts the fact that you are
intentionally saying it?
Intentional, as far as I can understand its use in philosophy, is
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I am responsible for my
actions because I know what I am doing and I choose to do it. If I
break the law I will be punished because the fear of punishment will
deter me and others who are thinking of doing the same
On Monday, March 4, 2013 8:11:12 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I am responsible for my
actions because I know what I am doing and I choose to do it. If I
break the law I will be punished because the
Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm sure the
researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion. All the research
shows is brain plasticity in interpreting signals from unusual neural pathways.
How does that invalidate mechanism?
--
You received this
On 3/4/2013 8:27 PM, Pierz wrote:
Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm sure the
researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion. All the research
shows is brain plasticity in interpreting signals from unusual neural pathways.
How does that invalidate
There is information (I take information to be a
manifestation of entropy) and it is always represented
in the form of a pattern (a distribution) of the units
of mass/energy of which the Universe is composed. I
think that semiotic signs are simply specific bits
of information; I will use the
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Really Craig? It invalidates mechanistic assumptions about eyes? I'm sure
the researchers would be astonished at such a wild conclusion. All the
research shows is brain plasticity in interpreting signals from unusual
neural
17 matches
Mail list logo
