On 25 Apr 2012, at 20:41, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
A link from the Consciousness group on Facebook
We're closing in on consciousness in the brain
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428605.900-were-closing-in-on-consciousness-in-the-brain.html
Brain observatories may solve the puzzle of how
On 25 Apr 2012, at 20:45, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 24.04.2012 22:22 meekerdb said the following:
...
As I've posted before, when we know how look at a brain and infer
what
it's thinking and we know how to build a brain that behaves as we
want,
in other words when we can do consciousness
On 25 Apr 2012, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/25/2012 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I would not separate them. The question consists in finding the
less false conception/theory of reality.
Applications always follow. For the best and the worst.
Bruno
Applications often lead.
On Apr 25, 11:44 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
This means only that you have a reductionist conception of machine.
I think that reductionism is mechanistic by definition.
What does it mean to behave like a machine or to be robotic? Why
should it mean that? This doesn't prove that
On Apr 25, 1:02 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I see clearly that causality arises out of feeling
That's a rather odd way of looking at it, but if so then you can clearly
see that when billiard ball X hits ball Y
On Apr 25, 1:57 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
- I couldn't make one from scratch.
Standard sexual reproduction will typically work.
Craig
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
On 4/26/2012 4:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 25 Apr 2012, at 20:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/25/2012 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I would not separate them. The question consists in finding the less false
conception/theory of reality.
Applications always follow. For the best and the worst.
On 14 mrt, 17:49, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
'The concept of an afterlife is a perfectly reasonable thing to be
able
to imagine'
It is not. There is no strongly justified argument to suppose that
aynthing 'mind' like can stay in existence when the brain stops
functioning.
'I'm talking about the existence of feeling as a phenomenon in the
universe. It makes no sense logically. '
Why not? Feelings cause brain and body states that could be usefull
from the point of evolution.
On 26 apr, 17:20, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 25, 1:02 pm, John
On Apr 26, 1:52 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Apr 2012, at 16:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Apr 25, 11:44 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
This means only that you have a reductionist conception of machine.
I think that reductionism is mechanistic by
* *Dear 'Socratus':
thanks for the Physics 101 class. It was timely, since I had my Ph.D.
(physics as 2nd 'obligatory') in 1948 and forgetfulness is justified over
such a long time.
Let me insert into your reply some naive remarks in *bold italics *please.
With respectful regards
John
On Tue,
On Apr 26, 3:31 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand either because I don't know what the ASCII string free
will means.
Is this tedious sophistry random or determined?
Without free will, arguing with you would be like arguing with someone
about what color their
On Apr 26, 4:17 pm, graytiger dirk.vanglab...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 mrt, 17:49, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
'The concept of an afterlife is a perfectly reasonable thing to be
able
to imagine'
It is not. There is no strongly justified argument to suppose that
aynthing
On Apr 26, 11:55 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 26, 4:17 pm, graytiger dirk.vanglab...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 mrt, 17:49, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
'The concept of an afterlife is a perfectly reasonable thing to be
able
to imagine'
It is
On Apr 26, 6:58 pm, graytiger dirk.vanglab...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 mrt, 17:49, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
'The concept of an afterlife is a perfectly reasonable thing to be
able
to imagine'
It is not. There is no strongly justified argument to suppose that
On Apr 26, 4:34 pm, graytiger dirk.vanglab...@gmail.com wrote:
'I'm talking about the existence of feeling as a phenomenon in the
universe. It makes no sense logically. '
Why not? Feelings cause brain and body states that could be usefull
from the point of evolution.
I don't think that there
On 4/26/2012 7:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
because people don't like the idea of dying. But that doesn't prove a
thing.
It proves my point - that it is a perfectly reasonable thing to be
able to imagine.
People think they can imagine things just because they can stick words together to
On 4/26/2012 7:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Apr 26, 4:34 pm, graytigerdirk.vanglab...@gmail.com wrote:
'I'm talking about the existence of feeling as a phenomenon in the
universe. It makes no sense logically. '
Why not? Feelings cause brain and body states that could be usefull
from the
On Apr 26, 11:02 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/26/2012 7:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Apr 26, 4:34 pm, graytigerdirk.vanglab...@gmail.com wrote:
'I'm talking about the existence of feeling as a phenomenon in the
universe. It makes no sense logically. '
Why not?
On 4/26/2012 8:58 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Apr 26, 11:02 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 4/26/2012 7:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Apr 26, 4:34 pm, graytigerdirk.vanglab...@gmail.comwrote:
'I'm talking about the existence of feeling as a phenomenon in the
universe. It
20 matches
Mail list logo
