On 6/19/2012 7:37 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:22 AM, meekerdb wrote:
I don't see that as contrary to compatibilism which holds that 'free will'
is compatible with determinism (but not that determinism is necessarily
true). Of course an otherwise deterministic inte
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> Why does my free will depend on someone else's ability to predict it? Just
> because what I say is not surprising doesn't mean that I am not generating
> my own words voluntarily and freely.
Your actions are unpredictable, even if determin
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:22 AM, meekerdb wrote:
> I don't see that as contrary to compatibilism which holds that 'free will'
> is compatible with determinism (but not that determinism is necessarily
> true). Of course an otherwise deterministic intelligence may make a random
> choice as part of
On 6/19/2012 11:38 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
As for Newtons arguments for God, please find below quotes from Soul of Science, p.
66-67. If you do not agree, you may want to read Newton's Principia and offer your own
interpretation.
Evgenii
"The reason Newton felt free to avoid ultimate causes
On 19.06.2012 09:50 Bruno Marchal said the following:
..
This might be because you confine yourself to christian theologians.
I read a long time ago a book ("La malle de Newton") which confirms
Newton neo-platonic tendencies. Keep in mind that neo-platonist have
to hide their idea since Rome
On 18.06.2012 23:53 meekerdb said the following:
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
On 6/19/2012 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jun 2012, at 08:01, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 6/18/2012 5:13 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:
Bec
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> Unlike the proton and neutron nobody has found any experimental
> evidence that the electron has a inner structure, that it is made of parts.
>
>
> > The primitive matter I talk about is the idea of primary matter in the
> Aristotle sense
On 18.06.2012 21:56 Craig Weinberg said the following:
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.
The q
On 19 Jun 2012, at 17:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/19/2012 3:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Lawrence Krauss in his book "A Universe From Nothing" says that
someday something close to that might actually be possible.
You mean? Deriving addition and multiplication from physics? That
is impossible.
On 19 Jun 2012, at 17:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/19/2012 12:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jun 2012, at 00:08, meekerdb wrote:
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/
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 13 Jun 2012, at 10:44, R AM wrote:
>
> I know that you and Bruno are compatibilists. I'm not attacking your
> notion of free will. I agree that free will is a social construct. I'm
> going even further: free will doesn't even deserve a
On 19 Jun 2012, at 16:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/19/2012 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Is this the "meaning which with some approach to unanimity they
have expounded at considerable length." It doesn't sound
unanimous with with any theologians I've read.
This might be because you confine
On Jun 19, 3:59 pm, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 1Z wrote:
> >> how would the world be different if causes WERE reasons?
>
> > > if someone gets struck by lightning, God really does hate them.
>
> I pray to God you're joking.
Causes=reasons is *your* idea. I'm just stating the con
On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:20:32 AM UTC-4, John K Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> > I can provide an example of something that is neither random nor
>> determined*
>>
>> * (from certain perspectives)
>>
>
> Of course it's not random or determined *FR
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> I can provide an example of something that is neither random nor
> determined*
>
> * (from certain perspectives)
>
Of course it's not random or determined *FROM CERTAIN PERSPECTIVES*! I've
said over and over that there are only 2 meanings t
On 6/19/2012 3:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Lawrence Krauss in his book "A Universe From Nothing" says that someday something close
to that might actually be possible.
You mean? Deriving addition and multiplication from physics? That is impossible.
I'd say that depends on what you mean by 'der
On 6/19/2012 12:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jun 2012, at 00:08, meekerdb wrote:
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 c
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 1Z wrote:
>> how would the world be different if causes WERE reasons?
>>
>
> > if someone gets struck by lightning, God really does hate them.
>
I pray to God you're joking.
> Reasons are aims and intentions in the minds of intelligent agents which
> explain and justify th
On 6/19/2012 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Is this the "meaning which with some approach to unanimity they have expounded at
considerable length." It doesn't sound unanimous with with any theologians I've read.
This might be because you confine yourself to christian theologians.
You're say
On Jun 19, 2012, at 4:26 AM, R AM wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:56 AM, Jason Resch
wrote:
There is little difference, that I can see, between Brent's proposed
spirit world intervening in the physical world, and brains in vats
intervening in a virtual world, and there is nothing
On 18 Jun 2012, at 18:32, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal
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
On 19 Jun 2012, at 08:01, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 6/18/2012 5:13 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 manifes
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> There is little difference, that I can see, between Brent's proposed
> spirit world intervening in the physical world, and brains in vats
> intervening in a virtual world, and there is nothing impossible about the
> latter scenario. From th
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:53:13PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
responding to Evgenii
> >
> >b) I believe in the M-theory?
>
> M-theory doesn't care if you believe in it or not. In fact it
> doesn't care about you or anything else.
>
What does this even mean? M-theory is consistent? That M-theory i
On 19 Jun 2012, at 00:08, meekerdb wrote:
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,
On 18 Jun 2012, at 23:53, meekerdb wrote:
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
