On 17 Jun 2012, at 19:35, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
We can perhaps agree that consciousness-here-and-now is the only
truth we know which seems undoubtable, so it might be more easy to
explain the illusion of matter to consciousness
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
But then why to talk that every event has a cause?
I don't know what you're talking about. I never said everything had a
cause, in fact I have a strong hunch that some things happen for no cause
but I could be wrong about that.
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Can you give an example of something neither determined nor random?
No, not that I know to be such
What a surprise.
but believers in contra causal free will think that at least some of their
actions are.
In other words believers
On Jun 5, 3:27 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If top level properties were determined by low level properties, then
there would only be one level of description.
Doens't follow. Forest-level descriptions may be convenient.
--
You received this message because you are
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
This is debatable. nobody has found, nor can found, example of primitive
matter.
Unlike the proton and neutron nobody has found any experimental evidence
that the electron has a inner structure, that it is made of parts.
On Jun 15, 5:17 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/15/2012 8:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jun 2012, at 18:21, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand how we can
On Jun 16, 6:49 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It seems pretty clear. It's an ability to make decisions in a spirit
realm and have them implemented in the physical realm.
Physical realm mental realm spirit realm or
On Jun 17, 7:28 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
No, not that I know to be such; but believers in contra causal free will
think that at
least some of their actions are.
Does anyone describe themselves as a believer in Contra Causal Free
Will? People do
describe themselves as
On 6/18/2012 11:51 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2012 1:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Jun 2012, at 19:35, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
We can perhaps agree that consciousness-here-and-now is the
only
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:38 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Thins happen for:
a reason and a cause
or
a reason but not cause
or
no reason but a cause
or
no reason and no cause.
The dictionary on my Mac says a reason is a cause. It also says a cause is
a reason. What on are you
On 6/18/2012 9:50 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Jun 17, 7:28 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
No, not that I know to be such; but believers in contra causal free will think
that at
least some of their actions are.
Does anyone describe themselves as a believer in Contra Causal Free
Will? People
On Jun 18, 6:02 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:38 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Thins happen for:
a reason and a cause
or
a reason but not cause
or
no reason but a cause
or
no reason and no cause.
The dictionary on my Mac says a
On 6/13/2012 1:02 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
And what is that meaning which they have expounded with unanimity and
has anyone who is *not* a theologian ever believed it?
I believe that educated people, for example scientists, have followed theological books.
But I asked what *it* is, the
On Jun 18, 6:03 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/18/2012 9:36 AM, 1Z wrote:
About nc-free-will, I have not any idea (yet?) about what it could mean.
I tend to agree
with John on this.
It seems pretty clear. It's an ability to make decisions in a spirit
realm
On Jun 18, 6:22 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/18/2012 9:50 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Jun 17, 7:28 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
No, not that I know to be such; but believers in contra causal free will
think that at
least some of their actions are.
Does anyone
On 6/18/2012 10:34 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Jun 18, 6:03 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/18/2012 9:36 AM, 1Z wrote:
About nc-free-will, I have not any idea (yet?) about what it could mean. I tend
to agree
with John on this.
It seems pretty clear. It's an ability to make
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:31 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
causes are not reasons
I see. Well, how would the world be different if causes WERE reasons? No I
take it back, I don't see.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On Jun 18, 6:46 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:31 PM, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
causes are not reasons
I see. Well, how would the world be different if causes WERE reasons?
It means that if someone gets struck by lightning, God really does
hate
On Jun 18, 6:44 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/18/2012 10:34 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Jun 18, 6:03 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/18/2012 9:36 AM, 1Z wrote:
About nc-free-will, I have not any idea (yet?) about what it could
mean. I tend to agree
On 6/18/2012 11:16 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Jun 18, 6:44 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/18/2012 10:34 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Jun 18, 6:03 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.netwrote:
On 6/18/2012 9:36 AM, 1Z wrote:
About nc-free-will, I have not any idea (yet?) about what it could
On 18.06.2012 16:39 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
But then why to talk that every event has a cause?
I don't know what you're talking about. I never said everything had
a cause, in fact I have a strong hunch that some things
On 18.06.2012 19:33 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/13/2012 1:02 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
And what is that meaning which they have expounded with unanimity
and has anyone who is *not* a theologian ever believed it?
I believe that educated people, for example scientists, have
followed
On Monday, June 18, 2012 3:12:35 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Do you have a good definition of 'cause'?
Any change originating from beyond your own direct participation, ie, the
consequence of any motive other than your own.
Craig
--
You received this message because you are
Evgeniy: Hawkins may require cause and effect we just don't know how
many of those are working? We select in our known model the most likely
initiating cause while many others may act from the still
unknown/unknowable infinite 'complexity' background out there (and in
here) as well, some with more
On Saturday, June 16, 2012 12:56:39 PM UTC-4, John K Clark wrote:
It's true that as I've described it using nothing but English it does
sound a little subjective and vague about where exactly the transition
between micro and macro states occurs, however if you use mathematics you
can
On Saturday, June 16, 2012 3:55:03 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
Thanks, that make my point exactly:
This entropy, H(S|O), depends on the information that a given observer, O,
has about S, and the work necessary to erase a system may therefore vary
for different observers.
Craig
Or have a look
Brent, Stephen,
On 18 Jun 2012, at 18:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 6/18/2012 11:51 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2012 1:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because consciousness, to be relatively manifestable, introduced a
separation between me and not me, and the not me below my
substitution
On 6/18/2012 12:37 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 18.06.2012 19:33 meekerdb said the following:
On 6/13/2012 1:02 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
And what is that meaning which they have expounded with unanimity
and has anyone who is *not* a theologian ever believed it?
I believe that educated
On 6/18/2012 2:13 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Brent, Stephen,
On 18 Jun 2012, at 18:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 6/18/2012 11:51 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/18/2012 1:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because consciousness, to be relatively manifestable, introduced a separation between
me and not
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:20 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Can you give an example of something neither determined nor random?
No, not that I know to be such
What a surprise.
I can provide an example of something
30 matches
Mail list logo
