Hi Brent,
Brent: ' You seem to imply that the advent of the scientific
method banished slavery and tyranny and racism. Would that it
were so. Perhaps the scientific method can be applied to
politics and perhaps it would have that effect, but historically
the scientific method has been
Hi John
JM: You may ask about prejudice, shame (about goofed situations), humor
(does a
computer laugh?) boredom or preferential topics (you push for an
astronomical calculation and the computer says: I rather play some Bach
music now)
Sexual preference (even disinterestedness is slanted), or
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 02:06:14PM +0100, David Nyman wrote:
RS:
Terminology is terminology, it doesn't have a point of view.
DN:
This may be a nub of disagreement. I'd be interested if you could clarify.
My characterisation of a narrative as '3-person' is when (ISTM) that it's an
On 23/06/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RS: I don't think I ever really found myself in
disagreement with you. Rather, what is happening is symptomatic of us
trying to reach across the divide of JP Snow's two cultures. You are
obviously comfortable with the world of literary
David Nyman wrote:
On 23/06/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BM: But he could also switch from an account in terms of the machine
level causality to an account in terms of the computed 'world'. In fact
he could switch back and forth. Causality in
On 23/06/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BM: But he could also switch from an account in terms of the machine level
causality to an account in terms of the computed 'world'. In fact he could
switch back and forth. Causality in the computed 'world' would have it's
corresponding
David Nyman wrote:
Hi John
JM: You may ask about prejudice, shame (about goofed situations), humor
(does a
computer laugh?) boredom or preferential topics (you push for an
astronomical calculation and the computer says: I rather play some Bach
music now)
Sexual preference (even
On 23/06/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BM: Changing the description would be analogous to changing the reference
frame or the names on a map.
DN: I agree.
BM: The two processes would still be parallel, not orthogonal.
DN: But the inference I draw from your points above is that
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 03:58:39PM +0100, David Nyman wrote:
On 23/06/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RS: I don't think I ever really found myself in
disagreement with you. Rather, what is happening is symptomatic of us
trying to reach across the divide of JP Snow's two
Dear Everything List (and Psyche-B),
Here is the promised 'fundamental principle of the Chalmers kind'. Note:
there is no magical emergence here. There is no panpsychism here. There is
no dualism here.
If there is apparent logical circularity, it is of a kind far less
problematic than alternate
10 matches
Mail list logo
