On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 5:20 PM, John Mikes wrote:
> Rex,
> (I guess the unsigned text below came from you)
> thanks for your "one-liner" gemstone of a definition on
> "Conscious Experience"!
> John Mikes
Indeed! Thanks John, glad you liked it!
>
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Rex All
David Nyman wrote:
> 2009/8/17 Flammarion :
>
>> Yep. I have no problem with any of that
>
> Really? Let's see then.
>
>>> The "paraphrase" condition means, for example, that instead of adopting a
>>> statement
>>> like "unicorns have one horn" as a true statement about reality and thus
2009/8/18 Jesse Mazer wrote:
>>
>> Peter Jones wrote:
>>
>> Primary matter is very much related to the fact that some theories of
>> physics work and other do not. It won't tell you which ones work, but
>> it will tell you why there is a difference. It solves the white rabbit
>> problem. We don't
2009/8/18 Jesse Mazer :
> David Nyman wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17 Aug, 17:45, Flammarion wrote:
>>
>> > I've seen John Baez suggest that
>>
>> For a moment I thought you said Joan Baez (I guess I shouldn't have
>> stayed up so late watching "Woodstock - the director's cut").
>
> In fact they are cousi
David Nyman wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Aug, 17:45, Flammarion wrote:
>
> > I've seen John Baez suggest that
>
> For a moment I thought you said Joan Baez (I guess I shouldn't have
> stayed up so late watching "Woodstock - the director's cut").
In fact they are cousins! See question 1 of this interv
Peter Jones wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Aug, 14:46, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> > 1Z wrote:
> > > > But those space-time configuration are themselves described by
> > > > mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers described or
> > > > explain.
>
> > But what is this "primary matter"? If it
On 17 Aug, 17:45, Flammarion wrote:
> I've seen John Baez suggest that
For a moment I thought you said Joan Baez (I guess I shouldn't have
stayed up so late watching "Woodstock - the director's cut").
Were those really the days?
D
>
> On 17 Aug, 15:23, ronaldheld wrote:
>
> > arxiv.org:0908
2009/8/17 Flammarion :
> I am trying to persuade Bruno that his argument has an implict
> assumption of Platonism that should be made explicit. An assumption
> of Platonism as a non-observable background might be
> justifiiable in the way you suggest, but it does need
> to be made explicit.
Yes
2009/8/17 Flammarion :
> Yep. I have no problem with any of that
Really? Let's see then.
>> The "paraphrase" condition means, for example, that instead of adopting a
>> statement like "unicorns have one horn" as a true statement about reality
>> and thus being forced to accept the existe
Rex,
(I guess the unsigned text below came from you)
thanks for your "one-liner" gemstone of a definition on
"Conscious Experience"!
John Mikes
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 9:11 PM, David Nyman wrote:
> >
> > Here's what I think is the problem w
On 17 Aug, 20:49, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> Peter Jones wrote:
>
> > On 17 Aug, 11:17, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > > On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote:
>
> > > > Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within
> > > > physical space. So the UDA is based on Plat., not the other way
On 17 Aug, 18:51, Brent Meeker wrote:
> Jesse Mazer wrote:
> Does Bruno assume arithmetic is really real or just a really good model, and
> can the
> difference be known?
I don't think Bruno believes there is anything else
for arithemeic *to* model.
--~--~-~--~~~---
On 17 Aug, 14:46, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
> > > But those space-time configuration are themselves described by
> > > mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers described or
> > > explain.
> But what is this "primary matter"? If it is entirely divorced from all the
> e
Peter Jones wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Aug, 11:17, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote:
> >
> > > Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within
> > > physical space. So the UDA is based on Plat., not the other way
> > > round.
> >
> > Are you saying that w
> I'm afraid you are solipsist.
Ha! Ouch! But it's not quite as simple as that. I don't deny that
there MAY be something that causes consciousness, BUT if there
is...this ultimately doesn't matter. In the final view, the
conclusion is the same...consciousness experience just is what it is.
F
Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>
> 1Z wrote:
>
>
> > > But those space-time configuration are themselves described by
> > > mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers described or
> > > explain.
> >
> > Irrelevant. "Described by" does not mean "is"
> >
> > >This leads to major d
On 17 Aug, 11:23, David Nyman wrote:
> 2009/8/17 1Z :
>
> > Look, I have already said that I am not going to get into an argument
> > about which pixies exist.
>
> Forgive me for butting in, but I wonder whether there is a level at
> which your metaphysical disagreement is perhaps somewhat more
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote:
>
>> Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within
>> physical space. So the UDA is based on Plat., not the other way
>> round.
>
>
> Are you saying that without platonism, the square root of 2 does not
> exis
On 17 Aug, 11:17, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote:
>
> > Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within
> > physical space. So the UDA is based on Plat., not the other way
> > round.
>
> Are you saying that without platonism, the square root of 2 d
I've seen John Baez suggest that
On 17 Aug, 15:23, ronaldheld wrote:
> arxiv.org:0908.2063v1
> Any comments?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email
On 17 Aug 2009, at 12:39, David Nyman wrote:
>
> On 17 Aug, 08:43, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> Good intuition David. I think that at some point you are too much
>> precise, so that I can refer only to the interview of the Universal
>> Machine, and you may agree with her, perhaps by making some
arxiv.org:0908.2063v1
Any comments?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send e
1Z wrote:
> > But those space-time configuration are themselves described by
> > mathematical functions far more complex that the numbers described or
> > explain.
>
> Irrelevant. "Described by" does not mean "is"
>
> >This leads to major difficulties, even before approaching the
> > co
On 17 Aug, 08:43, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Good intuition David. I think that at some point you are too much
> precise, so that I can refer only to the interview of the Universal
> Machine, and you may agree with her, perhaps by making some vocabulary
> adjustments.
Thanks Bruno. How might
2009/8/17 1Z :
> Look, I have already said that I am not going to get into an argument
> about which pixies exist.
Forgive me for butting in, but I wonder whether there is a level at
which your metaphysical disagreement is perhaps somewhat more
resolvable? It might be supposed that materialism
On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:11, 1Z wrote:
> Without Platonism, there is no UD since it is not observable within
> physical space. So the UDA is based on Plat., not the other way
> round.
Are you saying that without platonism, the square root of 2 does not
exist? Prime number does not exist? That m
On 16 Aug, 16:34, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 14 Aug 2009, at 14:34, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 14 Aug, 09:48, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >> You are dismissing the first person indeterminacy. A stuffy TM can
> >> run
> >> a computation. But if a consciousness is attached to that
> >> computation,
On 16 Aug 2009, at 04:08, russell standish wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 10:03:41PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Look at this in this way: may be it is because I like the stuffy
>> stuff
>> so much that I want to assoir it on something more solid than
>
> ^^ seat
Good intuition David. I think that at some point you are too much
precise, so that I can refer only to the interview of the Universal
Machine, and you may agree with her, perhaps by making some vocabulary
adjustments.
Bruno
On 17 Aug 2009, at 03:54, David Nyman wrote:
>
> 2009/8/14 Brun
On 17 Aug 2009, at 02:02, Rex Allen wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal
> wrote:
>>
>> "I exist" could be, perhaps, tautological. But "Reality"? I don't
>> think so. Certainly not from inside.
>
> What is reality, beyond our conscious experience of existence?
This is wh
30 matches
Mail list logo
