Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 01 Dec 2008, at 03:25, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 07:10:43PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I am speaking as someone unconvinced that MGA2 implies an
absurdity. MGA2 implies that the consciousness is supervening on the
stationary
Bruno,
It sounds like what you are saying in this reply is that my version of
COMP+MAT is consistent, but counter to your intuition (because you
cannot see how consciousness could be attached to physical stuff). If
this is the case, then it sounds like MGA only works for specific
versions of MAT-
On 02/12/2008, at 4:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Hi Kim,
>
>
> On 28 Nov 2008, at 09:54, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
>> How is it - dans les termes comprehensibles a un gamin comme moi -
>> that because I am a machine, SANS des MATHEMATIQUES, there is no
>> substratum of primitive physical materiali
Hello M.A.,
> * Mine dwells on bad actions. (Jewish guilt perhaps.) *
Maybe this post is of interest for you? (it is good)
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/03/tsuyoku_naritai.html
> The whole of Nietzsche's
> philosophy is a monument dedicated to gainsay that error.
>
> *Yet most of his pe
Hi Bruno,
>> but no! Then we wouldn't have a substrate anymore.
> Oh( That is not true! We still have the projector and the film. We can
> project the movie in the air or directly in your eyes.
Ok I see now where our intuitions differ (always the problem with
thought experiment) - but maybe w
Dear Bruno,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> To call it deterministic is IMO OK, but not free will at all. Self
>> or not self: it is a consequence.
>
> Then we should make all criminals free, because they all just obeys
> Schroedinger equation. (Free)-will exists because we cannot known all
No of
This is going to be crude, but if I understand what Bruno( and others)
are saying, there is no Physics or physical universe. There is a (are)
large computer program(s) running, some segment of which exhibits
consciousness? Does that crudely imply that everything I sense could
be considered a dream
Hi Kim,
On 28 Nov 2008, at 09:54, Kim Jones wrote:
> How is it - dans les termes comprehensibles a un gamin comme moi -
> that because I am a machine, SANS des MATHEMATIQUES, there is no
> substratum of primitive physical materiality?
>
> If you can explain this dans des termes simples pour un
This business of histories not interacting... does the Bell Inequality have
some bearing here? My intuition is that the universe behaves classically
while it's linked to consciousness - quantum interference is fine as long as
it leaves no 'split-states' hanging around to be
observed/otherwise-direc
On 01 Dec 2008, at 17:26, John Mikes wrote:
> That does not make a logical sense to me:
> "self-determinism" is based on the content of one's personal
> experience (colored by genetic dissposition) and concerning
> relational input.
> To call it deterministic is IMO OK, but not free will at
On 01 Dec 2008, at 03:25, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 07:10:43PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> I am speaking as someone unconvinced that MGA2 implies an
>>> absurdity. MGA2 implies that the consciousness is supervening on the
>>> stationary film.
>>
>>
>> ? I could
On 30 Nov 2008, at 20:21, M.A. wrote:
> Bruno,
> Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the detailed
> explanations. I'll post my responses in an interlinear manner using
> color to differentiate (if that's ok). M.A.
> - Original Message -
> From: Bruno Marchal
> To: [EMAIL PR
Hi, Bruno; you wrote (see below):
"Doesn't amoebas split in two?"
I did not expect from you to quote 1 (ONE) case that does not comply with a
general statement as 'evidence', especially when this 1 case is a figmentous
conclusion from the "physical world's" reductionist science.
(- Even 78 addit
Hi Abram,
On 30 Nov 2008, at 19:17, Abram Demski wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> No, she cannot be conscious that she is partially conscious in this
> case, because the scenario is set up such that she does everything as
> if she were fully conscious-- only the counterfactuals change. But, if
> someone t
On 30 Nov 2008, at 19:14, Günther Greindl wrote:
>
> Hello Bruno,
>
> I must admit you have completely lost me with MGA 3.
>
> With MGA 1 and 2, I would say that, with MEC+MAT, also the the
> projection of the movie (and Lucky Alice in 1) are conscious - because
> it supervenes on the physical a
Hi Günther,
On 30 Nov 2008, at 18:53, Günther Greindl wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Bruno, do you still keep a notion of causality and the likes in
> platonia? I have collected these snips from some recent posts:
OK, I will comment, and perhaps say more for the benefit of the
others. But in a nuts
Hi John,
> Bruno,
> I wanted to submit some reflections to M.A. but you did it better.
> Two words, however, I picked out:
>
> 1. bifurcate
> I consider it a human narrowness to expect "anything" to split in TWO
> (only) - Nature (the existence?) does not 'count'.
> It has unlimited varants an
17 matches
Mail list logo
