On 08 Feb 2014, at 20:06, Chris de Morsella wrote:
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 8:01 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Suicide Words God and Ideas
The invention of
On 9 February 2014 15:10, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It's an assumption in science that the language difference is due to
brain difference. That's not to say that our techniques are at present
refined enough to see a difference, but there must be one if language
is due to the
On 9 February 2014 15:11, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:47:26 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 7 February 2014 07:47, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Well, I *could* be a zombie and still say that, unless you consider
the idea of zombies
On 9 February 2014 17:10, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:55:43 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 8 February 2014 05:03, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
If there were identical triplets, and one of them grew up on the other
side
of the world
On 09 Feb 2014, at 02:47, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 7 February 2014 07:47, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Well, I *could* be a zombie and still say that, unless you consider
the idea of zombies contradictory (which maybe it is).
I bet you are not a zombie. But you seem to
On 09 Feb 2014, at 05:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:55:43 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 8 February 2014 05:03, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
If there were identical triplets, and one of them grew up on the
other side
of the world and spoke a
On 09 Feb 2014, at 05:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
How do you know that you are really reading these words?
The question is ambiguous. If really reading these words refer to
the quale of reading those words, then I agree I can know that. But if
it means that there is a some 3p real reality
On 09 Feb 2014, at 10:27, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 9 February 2014 15:11, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:47:26 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 7 February 2014 07:47, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Well, I *could* be a zombie and
On 09 Feb 2014, at 10:35, LizR wrote:
On 9 February 2014 17:10, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:55:43 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 8 February 2014 05:03, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
If there were identical triplets, and one of them
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 5:39:58 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Feb 2014, at 05:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
How do you know that you are really reading these words?
The question is ambiguous. If really reading these words refer to the
quale of reading those words, then I agree I
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:27:57 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 9 February 2014 15:11, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:47:26 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 7 February 2014 07:47, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:28:09 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 9 February 2014 15:10, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
It's an assumption in science that the language difference is due to
brain difference. That's not to say that our techniques are at present
On Sunday, February 9, 2014, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 February 2014 17:10, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.comjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','whatsons...@gmail.com');
wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:55:43 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 8 February 2014 05:03, Craig Weinberg
On 08 Feb 2014, at 22:05, LizR wrote:
On 8 February 2014 08:43, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 07 Feb 2014, at 02:29, LizR wrote:
On 7 February 2014 09:14, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 06 Feb 2014, at 07:39, LizR wrote:
snip
OK, having had a look at what you say
On 09 Feb 2014, at 12:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 5:39:58 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Feb 2014, at 05:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
How do you know that you are really reading these words?
The question is ambiguous. If really reading these words refer to
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 7:23:12 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On 9 February 2014 17:10, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:55:43 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 8 February 2014
Craig,
Of course science is supposed to make assumptions. It's done all the time
and rightfully so.
But those assumptions are then supposed to be tested to see if they are
reasonable.
This is done in two ways. One by testing against empirical evidence. Two by
seeing if they are logically
Craig,
This is basically a question of epistemology. What is knowledge, and how do
we know what is true knowledge.
Ultimately, since there is no direct knowledge of actual reality since it's
all filtered through and interpreted within our own minds, the only true
test of true knowledge is
Craig,
The logical proof that we have accurate knowledge of the world is our very
existence. If our belief was completely wrong we could not function or even
exist. Therefore all extant species have sufficient true knowledge
(beliefs) of the world to function and exist within it.
Edgar
On
Craig,
I explain both OBE's and NDE's in my book on Reality.
The key to understanding OBE's is to first understand why normally the
brain constructs a view of reality in which we seem to be INSIDE our body,
inside our heads. When you understand how that works, it's easy to
understand how the
Jesse, et al,
A Propros of our discussion of determining same past moments of P-time let
me now try to present a much deeper insight into P-time, that illustrates
and explains that, and see if it makes sense. I will show how relativity
itself implicitly assumes and absolutely requires P-time
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse, et al,
A Propros of our discussion of determining same past moments of P-time let
me now try to present a much deeper insight into P-time, that illustrates
and explains that, and see if it makes sense. I will show
Jesse,
Same thing as I'm saying. My other clock time is just a clock centered in
your coordinate system. It's the same idea. If you look at the equations of
relativistic clock time they are always of the general form dt'/dt = f( ).
I just note that the dt with respect to which dt' is
On 09 Feb 2014, at 15:37, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Craig,
The logical proof that we have accurate knowledge of the world is
our very existence.
The logical evidence (not proof) that we might have accurate knowledge
of a possible world is, indeed, perhaps related to the feeling that
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
The ages are the only 'real' clocks here because they are not arbitrary
but real and actual and cannot be reset. They show different clock times in
the same present moment. All other clocks are arbitrary.
I don't
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Same thing as I'm saying. My other clock time is just a clock centered in
your coordinate system. It's the same idea. If you look at the equations of
relativistic clock time they are always of the general form
Jesse,
It's not clear to me what you mean by, in every coordinate system the
time-coordinate of A = the time-coordinate of B. Are you actually
disagreeing with that (please answer clearly yes or no).
The way I understand that the answer is clearly NO. The whole idea of
relativity is that the
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
What is inconsistent with the definition of 3p and 1p?
3p = the content of the diary of the guy which observes the teleportation
experience.
So 3p is the stuff that I see and 1p is the stuff you see. But the words
I and
Jesse,
No, the definition of p-time simultaneity itself depends on the arbitrary
choice of coordinate system is NOT true. I clearly stated otherwise and
explained why. Please reread if it isn't clear.
As for your last example, establishing past p-time simultaneity across
multiple frames is
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The invention of language was obviously of great benefit to the
species called Homo sapiens, but like all tools it is not perfect and
sometimes the brain can waste a great deal of processing power spinning its
wheels
On 10 February 2014 07:44, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
No, the definition of p-time simultaneity itself depends on the
arbitrary choice of coordinate system is NOT true. I clearly stated
otherwise and explained why. Please reread if it isn't clear.
You haven't *explained
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
It's not clear to me what you mean by, in every coordinate system the
time-coordinate of A = the time-coordinate of B. Are you actually
disagreeing with that (please answer clearly yes or no).
The way I
On 09 Feb 2014, at 19:27, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
What is inconsistent with the definition of 3p and 1p?
3p = the content of the diary of the guy which observes the
teleportation experience.
So 3p is the stuff that I see
Liz,
I did explain it in considerable detail. As usual you either aren't paying
attention or things aren't registering
Read my previous posts for the explanation
Edgar
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 2:02:25 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 10 February 2014 07:44, Edgar L. Owen
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
No, the definition of p-time simultaneity itself depends on the
arbitrary choice of coordinate system is NOT true. I clearly stated
otherwise and explained why. Please reread if it isn't clear.
Rereading doesn't
Jesse,
Let me try to clarify my response to your A, B, C past p-time simultaneity
example, because I think I misstated it in my previous post.
Assume three observers A, B, C, with three clock times t, t' and t''. It is
important to specify these are the clock time readings of their OWN clocks
Jesse,
The crux of my answer to the crossed tapes question was that yes that would
be true of clock time but not for p-time. Again you are using the question
to argue against clock time simultaneity. And I agree with that 100%. It's
just not p-time...
Edgar
On Sunday, February 9, 2014
Jesse,
1. is correct. There is an objective truth that past events are
simultaneous in p-time. Recall I also gave the exact same answer yesterday
or the day before.
2. is INcorrect.
However the question of what clock times in different frames correspond to
that objective same time in p-time
On 09 Feb 2014, at 19:56, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
The invention of language was obviously of great benefit to the
species called Homo sapiens, but like all tools it is not perfect
and sometimes the brain can waste a
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
1. is correct. There is an objective truth that past events are
simultaneous in p-time. Recall I also gave the exact same answer yesterday
or the day before.
Thanks. So how about the issue of transitivity? If
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
The crux of my answer to the crossed tapes question was that yes that
would be true of clock time but not for p-time. Again you are using the
question to argue against clock time simultaneity. And I agree with that
Jesse,
My answer to your last paragraph is yes, as I understand it...
For transitivity ignore my first post on that, and just read the second
that concludes there IS transitivity..
Edgar
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:22:28 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Edgar L.
Jesse,
Both, but you completely ignored my broad conceptual argument I gave first
thing this morning of why relativity itself assumes an unstated present
moment background to all relativistic relationships.
Sorry, but I disagree on your second point. P-time simultaneity does NOT
have purely
Jesse,
PS: Because P-time doesn't have an intrinsic metric like clock time and
space do
Edgar
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:29:39 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
The crux of my answer to the crossed
2014-02-08 17:00 GMT+01:00, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com:
The invention of language was obviously of great benefit to the species
called Homo sapiens, but like all tools it is not perfect and sometimes the
brain can waste a great deal of processing power spinning its wheels over
questions
On 10 February 2014 07:56, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
The invention of language was obviously of great benefit to the
species called Homo sapiens, but like all tools it is not perfect and
sometimes the
http://www.endecocide.eu/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:35:01 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
http://www.endecocide.eu/
I support the idea, but I don't feel like I can trust organizations like
that anymore. Often enough their just a money shakedown. Or they
have really nasty agenda against his people or someone else's. Or
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:23:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Feb 2014, at 12:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 5:39:58 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Feb 2014, at 05:25, Craig Weinberg wrote:
How do you know that you are really reading these
If Dark Matter and Dark Energy represents 96% of the “known” universe,
even if it paradoxically turns out that we know virtually nothing about it,
what other kinds of ratios-in-ignorance lurk as shockingly in our
self-significant lives?
There are 23% of Dark Matter and 73% of Dark Energy. -
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:27:38 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Craig,
Of course science is supposed to make assumptions. It's done all the time
and rightfully so.
But those assumptions are then supposed to be tested to see if they are
reasonable.
I wouldn't call them
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:41:29 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Craig,
I explain both OBE's and NDE's in my book on Reality.
The key to understanding OBE's is to first understand why normally the
brain constructs a view of reality in which we seem to be INSIDE our body,
inside our
I've looked at the site and I still can't see who you mean by he - please
explain.
I agree with you that we need to transform the world economy, however I
can't see that it is happening, so I promote all such initiatives on the
basis that any small thing might be the last straw. See Robert Anton
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
My answer to your last paragraph is yes, as I understand it...
For transitivity ignore my first post on that, and just read the second
that concludes there IS transitivity..
Edgar
OK, then in the scenario I
Jesse,
Before I go the trouble of answering your 4 questions on your example could
you please tell me if you agree with the 3 examples I provided, and the
p-time simultaneities I stated there?
I gave simpler examples to make p-time simultaneity easier to understand,
so it makes no sense to
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:19:52 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
I've looked at the site and I still can't see who you mean by he -
please explain.
oh vally good!
I agree with you that we need to transform the world economy, however I
can't see that it is happening,
Whatever hero (sorry
Not stating this as 'theoy', though feel free to batter it, but more you
know when sometimes you have a deep insight, and in that moment a lot of
things come together and perhaps you see that they are all the same or
whatever. A lot of the time - at least for others I mean not on this list -
In the meantime, can I have some of whatever you're on?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post
On Monday, February 10, 2014 1:10:02 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Not stating this as 'theoy', though feel free to batter it, but more you
know when sometimes you have a deep insight, and in that moment a lot of
things come together and perhaps you see that they are all the same or
On Monday, February 10, 2014 1:23:27 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
In the meantime, can I have some of whatever you're on?
I'm just a junkie love, Edgar's the dealer
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Both, but you completely ignored my broad conceptual argument I gave first
thing this morning of why relativity itself assumes an unstated present
moment background to all relativistic relationships.
You mean the
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Before I go the trouble of answering your 4 questions on your example
could you please tell me if you agree with the 3 examples I provided, and
the p-time simultaneities I stated there?
What do you mean agree
On 2/9/2014 1:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Feb 2014, at 22:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/8/2014 12:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
An epiphenomenalist would say that consciousness is just a necessary side effect of
intelligence. But I don't follow this: it is a phenomena having some role, I
On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Even on his argument, that nobody understand but him, against step 3? Then I invite you
to attempt to explain it to us.
I think I understand it. Asking the question which will you be in the MW experiment is
ambiguous because you is duplicated. One
On 9 February 2014 21:22, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 09 Feb 2014, at 02:47, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 7 February 2014 07:47, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Well, I *could* be a zombie and still say that, unless you consider
the idea of zombies contradictory (which
On 9 February 2014 22:40, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:27:57 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 9 February 2014 15:11, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:47:26 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 7 February 2014
On 9 February 2014 22:50, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Neuroscientists assume that we think with our brains just as cardiac
physiologists assume the heart pumps blood around the body. It's
possible they are wrong, but you would have to have a very good reason
to challenge these
67 matches
Mail list logo
