On 18 January 2014 19:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 10:18 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 19:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But where does it exist? X has to be conscious of a location, a
physics, etc. If all this is the same as where I exist, then
On 18 January 2014 20:35, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 11:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:55 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 10:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If mathematical statements are true independent of anything else then
It was that wonderful Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan who first
came up with the proof in 1913.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanujan_summation
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
On 17 Jan 2014, at 16:44, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The whole point of a super intelligent AI is that it has nothing to
learn from us.
We certainly disagree a lot on this. I think that the more you are
intelligent, the more you can learn from others, any others, even from
bacteria and
On 18 January 2014 04:47, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, January 17, 2014 6:14:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 20:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/16/2014 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The singularity is in the past, and is the discovery of the
On 17 Jan 2014, at 17:57, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
I give a coherent definition of free will in my book on Reality.
Free will is simply the fact that some bounded system generates
actions that are not entirely determined
On 17 Jan 2014, at 18:04, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
John,
I give a fairly detailed answer to what quantum randomness is and
what it applies to in my New Topic post Another shot at how
spacetime emerges from computational reality.
You did not answer the argument that there is no computational
This is quite awesome, and I mean that in its real sense rather than the
cheap sense it's thrown around nowadays. 50 years ago ... they asked what
are quasars? Now we are mapping the property of Sagitarius A, the
supermassive black hole at the centre of our galaxy, by tracing the orbits
of stars
On 17 Jan 2014, at 19:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, January 17, 2014 1:03:15 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Jan 2014, at 03:11, LizR wrote:
On 17 January 2014 14:17, Stathis Papaioannou stat...@gmail.com
wrote:
Historically, AI researchers did not consider the question of
On 17 Jan 2014, at 19:24, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I was not clear. Let me try again.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 15:18, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Let me first say that I share your opinion of
On 17 Jan 2014, at 23:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/17/2014 2:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that comes from your assumption that belief=provable
UDA does not use that assumption.
And AUDA uses only the assumption that you believe in what PA can
prove
That is provable=believed.
That is
On 17 Jan 2014, at 23:35, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 22:01, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/16 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
snip
And, in AUDA,
On 18 Jan 2014, at 00:13, LizR wrote:
Indeed it would be very strange, perhaps verging on miraculous. I
believe just the nuclear resonance discovered by Hoyle alone is
already incredibly fine tuned, after which we have the amazing
properties of carbon and water, and the cosmological
On 18 Jan 2014, at 04:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/17/2014 3:13 PM, LizR wrote:
Indeed it would be very strange, perhaps verging on miraculous. I
believe just the nuclear resonance discovered by Hoyle alone is
already incredibly fine tuned, after which we have the amazing
properties of
Alberto,
What is amusing is that Ramanujan said this (that 1+2+3+... = -1/12)
in a letter to find a job in England, just to illustrate that he was
not bad in computing. He was of course considered as crackpot until
the letter was given to Hardy, who recognized immediately the genius.
On 17 Jan 2014, at 20:38, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 04:44, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
But stop and think of the implications of what even Bruno is
saying. Space is
On 17 Jan 2014, at 21:01, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I think that you are setting up a false dichotomy with the notion
of a finite unique physical universe in Step 8 of the UDA! In my
thinking each and every observer has its own unique finite unique
physical universe
Why?
On 18 Jan 2014, at 01:01, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:10:23PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 11:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It doesn't mean anything. There are microtubles in all cells. So
why
don't I think with my penis...oh...never mind. :-)
Amazing.
That means that there are much left to discover in math.
And also note that:
1/12 = 2/24 and 24= flip 42 for some well known flip : N - N
;)
2014/1/18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
Alberto,
What is amusing is that Ramanujan said this (that 1+2+3+... = -1/12)
in a letter to
Yes; I know. Unfortunately, as is often the case, I have no time to
reply with the attention that it deserves.
2014/1/18, LizR lizj...@gmail.com:
Hi Alberto
i think your basic point came across even if the post was unfinished. I
have attempted to reply to it above.
--
You received this
Natural selection can favour ‘irrational’ behaviour
J. M. McNamara1, P. C. Trimmer2 and A. I. Houston2
1School of Mathematics, University of Bristol, University Walk, Bristol BS8
1TW, UK
2School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Woodland Road,
Bristol BS8 1UG, UK
e-mail:
Craig,
I think you are late to the discussion and missed some of my previous posts.
First the present moment of p-time is directly OBSERVABLE. It's the most
basic observation of our existence from birth to death. That is undeniable,
and direct observation is the foundation of all scientific
Dear Jason, Bent and LizR,
This conversation is getting interesting!
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:12 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 8:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:16
Brent,
First, there are NO possibilities in the future. The future does not
exist and thus there is no content that can ascribed to it.
What we have is the problem of how nature is to align separate spacetime
fragments in the PRESENT moment when an event common to them occurs,
necessitating
Brent,
But there is NO inertial frame that is not (presumably you meant 'in which
THEY are not') moving relative to one another for the twins during the
trip. If you think there is then what is it and how is it defined?
One twin is accelerating and the other isn't for goodness sakes. There
Brent,
Again, for the nth time, P-time is the presence of the logical space in
which all dimensionality and thus all measurables are computed. Thus it has
no measure in the sense that clock time does because it is the substrate or
background of all measurement.
However it can be directly
Russell,
Yes, I'm familiar with that and just posted a journal reference to it. But
it's an incorrect understanding. What is really important here is RATIONAL
UNpredictability, not IRrationality.
This is just rationally outsmarting your competitor by figuring out what he
thinks you are going
Bruno,
That's not an 'argument'. You are simply stating an hypothesis without any
logical supporting argument.
As to your second point you are talking about clock time, not p-time. You
still don't understand the difference which I've described in exhausting
detail... Moving clocks have
LOL! I hit send by accident... Interleaving below
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:12 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 8:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:16 PM, meekerdb
2014/1/18 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Craig,
I think you are late to the discussion and missed some of my previous
posts.
First the present moment of p-time is directly OBSERVABLE. It's the most
basic observation of our existence from birth to death. That is undeniable,
and direct
Dear Bruno,
Could you ever stop being obtuse?
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Jan 2014, at 21:01, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I think that you are setting up a false dichotomy with the notion of a
finite unique physical universe
On Jan 18, 2014, at 1:35 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 11:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:55 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/17/2014 10:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If mathematical statements are true independent of
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that one possible explaination is that neurochemistry is a very
fragile thing. And solvents, being reactive, can easily throw a wrench into
the whole thing.
But why does anesthesia just disrupt consciousness?
On Jan 18, 2014, at 11:51 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think that one possible explaination is that neurochemistry is a
very fragile thing. And solvents, being reactive, can easily throw a
wrench
Stephen,
I agree with your criticism of Bruno's UDA. It has no explanation for
becoming, for anything ever happening. I've also pointed this out.
However, this is equally true of block time, which you seem to believe in.
In block time there is no convincing way anything can ever actually
Dear Edgar,
LOL! You don't parse what I read very well... I have been saying that
block time is a BS idea. Time is not like that at all. I have a model of
time that works great in physics, but not many know of it. BTW, I do
appreciate your concept, but it is a cartoon with many lacuna. It needs
I would like to promote this blog post and the comments on it.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Edgar,
LOL! You don't parse what I read very well... I have been saying that
block
Stephen,
Speaking of parsing correctly, I presume you meant WRITE rather than read?
:-)
Anyway glad we agree block time is nonsense. So what's your idea of time
that is not BS, and that is not a cartoon with many lacuna?
A quick summary please?
Edgar
On Saturday, January 18, 2014 2:06:04
I am often in that state myself. The real world (whatever that is) keeps
intruding.
On 19 January 2014 01:44, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes; I know. Unfortunately, as is often the case, I have no time to
reply with the attention that it deserves.
2014/1/18, LizR
On 19 January 2014 07:09, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose it makes sense considering the brain is essentially a big lump
of fat.
OK, that's it, no more diets.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
On 19 January 2014 05:54, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Bruno,
I do not claim that UDA is flawed. I claim it is incomplete and based on
a false premise. The problem is the assumption that one can reason as if
the physical world does not exist and discuss ideas that
Dear Edgar,
I am dyslexic... Do you know what a Fiber Bundle is? I ask this because
the explanation does not transfer very well into English. I have tried to
summerize the theory previously and didn't get very favorable results. I
didn't discover it... It is the work of a Japanese Prof. Hitoshi
Dear Edgar,
The concept in Kitada's theory of local time that may resemble your idea
of an absolute present moment is the universal mapping of QM systems (via
their centers of mass) to each and every point of a space-time manifold.
All uncountable many of them. This creates a Fiber
Dear LizR,
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 January 2014 05:54, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Bruno,
I do not claim that UDA is flawed. I claim it is incomplete and based
on a false premise. The problem is the assumption that
On 18 January 2014 23:24, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Interesting. This illustrates perhaps some spectrum of different
geographies possible, with the same physics, but different parameters.
The WAP requires that, otherwise the fine tuning starts to look a little
(tries to think of
On 19 January 2014 05:26, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Bruno,
Could you ever stop being obtuse?
Dear Stephen,
Please don't start sounding like Edgar...
Please don't imply that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid!
--
You received this message because you
Dear LizR,
I know. I deserved that. It is just frustrating to explain something and
get a blank look in response.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:14 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 January 2014 05:26, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Bruno,
Could you ever stop
On 19 January 2014 11:16, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
I know. I deserved that. It is just frustrating to explain something and
get a blank look in response.
Do you have any teenage kids?!?
:)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
Yes, and friends that are teenagers in mental age.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 January 2014 11:16, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
I know. I deserved that. It is just frustrating to explain something
and get a blank
On 19 January 2014 10:52, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
To the contrary! Bruno seems to eschew the very idea of Becoming!
He appears to derive it from something static and eternal, hence the next
question...
I have to ask, do you accept block universes? If not imho
Dear LizR,
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:47 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 January 2014 10:52, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
To the contrary! Bruno seems to eschew the very idea of Becoming!
He appears to derive it from something static and eternal, hence the
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:11:50AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Comp does not need actual infinities, but it still needs the
potential infinity of all finite things (integers, or something).
But finitist physicalism is indeed a way out of comp. But then your
theory is
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 07:54:08PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear spudboy100,
As far as I know, no. It isn't possible to shift from one universe into
another and back. The universes are orthogonal to each other; they are not
stacked like sheets of paper on top of each other. The
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 02:48:53PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dare Jason,
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
So why can't zombies have intentions? Remember the only thing zombies
supposedly lack is qualia. If a zombie is hungry and goes out to
Dear Russell,
I would agree with you IFF the substitution level is way above the
micro-scale. Molecules do operate quantum mechanically and molecules are
above the substitution level. So I am skeptical.
Virtual reality in silico would have to have have a quantum level
resolution do do what
Dear Russel,
Can we detect self-modeling in our brains now? I have been doing some
research into Secure computation, trust me, my team is pretty sure that we
can make computations look like noise on the network.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
My information comes from New Scientist, so its not specialist
knowledge.
That said, Global Workspace Theory appears to be empirically confirmed
by the latest neuroscience, and that would be the space where the
system integrates the outputs of its various subsystems, ie is
self-conscious.
The
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 09:08:04PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Russell,
I would agree with you IFF the substitution level is way above the
micro-scale. Molecules do operate quantum mechanically and molecules are
above the substitution level. So I am skeptical.
Virtual reality
It would seem that sufficiently advanced technology will eventually be
able to detect all the neural correlates of consciousness.
Maybe a p-zombie should be defined as something that has the neural
correlates of consciousness but is still somehow not conscious. Or that
there ain't no such animal.
On 19 January 2014 11:49, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
I will write it again. Block Universes are an incoherent idea. It only
seems to work because we imagine tem as existing out there and subject to
our inspection from the outside. As if we are God or something... This
On 1/18/2014 1:09 AM, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 19:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/17/2014 10:18 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 19:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But where does it
Dear Russell,
I don't see the connection. How is self-modeling involved in the space
where the
system integrates the outputs of its various subsystems
?
There is a robotics project that does include very rudimentary
self-modeling in their programing.
Dear LizR,
Here is one way to see my worry. I can put my desktop under a scanning
tunneling microscope and various devices. Will it still operate the same
while it is scanned down its version of the substitution level? I don't
know, but that does not really bother me. I worry about people that
Dear Brent,
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/18/2014 1:09 AM, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 19:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 10:18 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 19:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Dear Russell,
I am soo happy, BTW, that you participate in this list!
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 09:08:04PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Russell,
I would agree with you IFF the substitution level is
On 19 January 2014 16:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/18/2014 1:09 AM, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 19:51, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 10:18 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 19:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But where does it exist?
On 19 January 2014 16:19, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Here is one way to see my worry. I can put my desktop under a scanning
tunneling microscope and various devices. Will it still operate the same
while it is scanned down its version of the substitution
On 19 January 2014 16:28, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Brent,
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Not so cotton-picking fast! Where is discussion of the proofs of said
necessarily true maths? I could be handed a papyrus scroll
Dear LizR,
However, there does seem to be a problem that needs explaining, concerning
why there is something rather than nothing, and what breathes fire into the
equations.
Any remarks on my proposal to answer those questions?
In bullet points:
Pairs of Opposite Somethings emerge and die
Dear LizR,
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 January 2014 16:28, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Brent,
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Not so cotton-picking fast! Where is discussion of
On 19 January 2014 16:51, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
However, there does seem to be a problem that needs explaining,
concerning why there is something rather than nothing, and what breathes
fire into the equations.
Any remarks on my proposal to answer
On 19 January 2014 16:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 January 2014 16:28, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
I am OK with postulating, but it is something like an
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:38:58PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Russell,
I am soo happy, BTW, that you participate in this list!
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:42 PM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 09:08:04PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Russell,
You wrote: I don't know why you would think destructive scanning is
necessary. I
certainly don't. You only need to wire up the brains inputs and
outputs. I thought the problem you were raising was how to
emulate the universe with sufficient fidelity for it to count as
visiting other
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:12:18PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Russell,
I don't see the connection. How is self-modeling involved in the space
where the
system integrates the outputs of its various subsystems
?
Perhaps its just this: the structure of neural connections in the
Dear Stathis,
There is a theorem by A.A. Markov that tells us that the decision problem
of whether or not a pair of 4-manifolds are smoothly diffeomorphic is
NP-Complete. How close does GR get to non-computable, given this?
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Stathis Papaioannou
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 10:12:18PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Russell,
I don't see the connection. How is self-modeling involved in the space
where the
system integrates the outputs of its
Dear Russell,
Hattip for the reference to Global Workspace theory.
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/CogSci/GWorkspace.html
Very nice! I think that it is consistent with Bruno's Lob theorem idea
(which i like a lot!).
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
My
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 07:06:48PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 18:49, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/17/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote:
Surprisingly, perhaps, such acts sometimes deliver payoffs to the actor.
Yes, for example, in cases where doing something is
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 08:05:03PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/17/2014 4:33 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Their actions aren't irrational, they just aren't completely determined by
their environments.
Rational beings are completely determined by their
environment.
Not if they have rational
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:40:51PM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 04:08:08PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
PS: On second thought maybe we don't agree completely. Though free will
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 05:56:23PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 18 January 2014 13:33, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 04:08:08PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
PS: On second thought maybe we don't agree completely. Though free will
is
On 19 January 2014 18:33, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
So much for free will, except as a synonym for instinct, unconscious
urges
and rational unpredictability.
That's exactly how I use the term free will. What other possible
meanings might it have?
People seem to
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 07:19:37AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
Yes, I'm familiar with that and just posted a journal reference to it. But
it's an incorrect understanding. What is really important here is RATIONAL
UNpredictability, not IRrationality.
This is just rationally
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:38:28PM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
Russell,
What are your thoughts regarding
compatibilismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism?
Do you consider it a cop-out?
Jason
I think it largely irrelevant, as it is clear we don't live in a
deterministic world.
--
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 9:42 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:11:57PM -0800, Chris de Morsella wrote:
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 9:42 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Jan 19, 2014, at 12:04 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:38:28PM -0600, Jason Resch wrote:
Russell,
What are your thoughts regarding
compatibilismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism?
Do you consider it a cop-out?
Jason
I think it
88 matches
Mail list logo
