Yeah, he is prolific. Publish or perish? His view is reflected in the papers of
your compatriot, Whitworth, at Auckland Math(s) department. It sort of works
for me because of me brain. Me brain has the amygdala which laffs or cries, and
me cerebrum, deals with logic and executive functions.
On 22 Feb 2015, at 23:52, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2015 at 10:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
Computationalism is an extraordinary claim.
The claim that what goes on inside brains is at some level Turing-
emulable seems not necessarily extraordinary - or do you think it
is? It seems
On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/22/2015 3:43 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2015 at 12:32, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
Computationalism is an extraordinary
On 23 Feb 2015, at 00:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 2/22/2015 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Feb 2015, at 02:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/20/2015 8:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:38, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 2/22/2015 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Feb
On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/22/2015 4:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Not as Bruno uses it: That all computations exist Platonically and
instantiate all possible thoughts - and a lot of other stuff.
That's arithmetical realism, not computationalism. However, to
believe in
Yes, as an explanation for the universe, is computationalism-math-cellular
automata can be falsified? Or, maybe its simply the truth, and the physicists,
let us say, who don't like it, find it too annoying to deal with? Plus, there's
no funding for such a proof, as in a grant$, so why bother?
On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2015 at 10:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
Computationalism is an extraordinary claim.
The claim that what goes on inside brains is at some level Turing-
emulable seems not necessarily extraordinary
Brent: cute. You said already something similar earlier. What I am asking
is the raport WHY we say the chair has mass and we expend energy - in
a scientific explanatory sense.
BTW I tried (and failed) to pick up a proton to experience its 'mass'.
According to some physicists it also has som
On 24 February 2015 at 09:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You seem to take the same view as LizR, You're either for my theory or
you're for a contrary theory.
You started it, dear. Since you've already acted many times as though my
agnosticism is really supporting a theory you
On 24 February 2015 at 09:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But then this undermines the idea that the arithmetic existential
quantifier provides the same exists as ostensive physical existence.
That is clearly not being suggested by comp. Comp suggests that physical
existence is maya
On 2/23/2015 12:49 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent: cute. You said already something similar earlier. What I am asking is the raport
WHY we say the chair has mass and we expend energy - in a scientific explanatory
sense.
I'm sure you're aware that in the scientific sense they are values within
On 23 Feb 2015, at 09:07, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I would argue that the history of science tells us that humans tend
to err on the side of assuming too much uniqueness in what they
observe.
I agree. Despite even Nature illustrates how much she likes to do
things in the many: many atoms,
On 2/23/2015 7:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/22/2015 3:43 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2015 at 12:32, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at
On 2/23/2015 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2015 at 10:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
Computationalism is an extraordinary claim.
The claim that what goes on
Brent: I am no 'skeptic' I just seek some basis WHY to believe?
JM
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:46 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/23/2015 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/22/2015 2:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 February 2015 at
Liz: any idea what - MASS - anad - ENRGY- 'may' be? (not from the
equational recourses based on the supposition of their 'existence' in
science!)
JM
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 7:05 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 February 2015 at 09:50, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
This
On 2/23/2015 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Feb 2015, at 01:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/22/2015 4:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Not as Bruno uses it: That all computations exist Platonically and
instantiate all
possible thoughts - and a lot of other stuff.
That's arithmetical
On 2/23/2015 11:48 AM, John Mikes wrote:
Liz: any idea what - MASS - anad - ENRGY- 'may' be? (not from the equational recourses
based on the supposition of their 'existence' in science!)
JM
You want a pre-theoretic idea of mass and energy? Pick up your chair and lift it over
your head ten
On 2/23/2015 11:51 AM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent: I am no 'skeptic' I just seek some basis WHY to believe?
What kind of basis? utility? perception? What would you consider a suitable basis? And
why do you want to believe? Is it more than just deciding how to act?
Brent
--
You received
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 2:13 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/20/2015 7:03 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:59 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/19/2015 3:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thursday, February 19, 2015, meekerdb
On 2/23/2015 12:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 24 February 2015 at 09:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But then this undermines the idea that the arithmetic existential quantifier
provides the same exists as ostensive physical existence.
That is clearly not
22 matches
Mail list logo
