>
> $$$ 1) Well it's an indeterminantcy, but which path is chosen is
> done by the geometry of the location
> or test probe, not the same I would think as logical choice (?)
> So I would say "no."
> ...
> Note that intelligence requires the ability to select.
>
>
> BRUNO: OK. But th
On Monday, October 1, 2012 8:09:53 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> >> But if the implants worked as implants without experiences the person
> >> would behave as if everything were fine while internally and
> >> impotently noticing
On 10/1/2012 1:28 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
ROGER: Objects can be physical and also infinitely divisible,
but L considered this infinite divisibility to disqualify an object to be real
because
there's no end to the process, one wouldn't end up with something
to refer to.
Hi Roger,
This
On 10/1/2012 1:00 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Physiological realities are mechanistic. Biologists and doctors are
mechanists. Even if you claim that "the whole is greater than the sum
of its parts" that does not mean that if yoyu replace the parts the
whole will stop working.
Yes. Anti-mechanist o
On 10/1/2012 3:39 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
An interesting perspective on evolution vs. engineering:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdg4mU-wuhI
From an engineer who uses evolution to design computers.
Notable points:
He is unable to understand how some of the outputs of this evolutionary process
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> But if the implants worked as implants without experiences the person
>> would behave as if everything were fine while internally and
>> impotently noticing that his experiences were disappearing or
>> changing. Do you understand what this
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:37 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> A brain in a vat would probably have an autonomous self,
> which is needed for everything the brain does.
>
> I don't see how an autonomous self can be present in
> a computer, because autonomous means it can't depend
> on anything--- especial
String theory and variable fine-structure measurements across the
universe suggest that the discrete and distinct monads are
ennumerable.
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
> On 10/1/2012 10:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>> Hi Stephen P. King
>>
>> Good idea, but unfortunately
On 10/1/2012 10:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Good idea, but unfortunately monads are not numbers,
numbers will now guide them or replace them.
Monads have to be associated with corporeal bodies down here in
contingia, where crap happens.
Hi Roger,
I agree, monads are not
On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:03:38 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> >> You're not really answering the question. The neural implants are
> >> refined to the point where thousands of people are walking around with
> >> them with no
On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:52:29 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Craig Weinberg
>
> > wrote:
>
> >>The difference is Evolution doesn't understand the concept of one step
>>> backward 2 steps forward for one thing, I went into considerable more
>>> detail abo
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>The difference is Evolution doesn't understand the concept of one step
>> backward 2 steps forward for one thing, I went into considerable more
>> detail about this in my last post and also gave you 4 more reasons how and
>> why intelligent
Hi Bruno Marchal
A brain in a vat would probably have an autonomous self,
which is needed for everything the brain does.
I don't see how an autonomous self can be present in
a computer, because autonomous means it can't depend
on anything--- especially not hardware or software.
Let me also s
Hi Bruno Marchal
Responses indicated by $$s
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/1/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-01, 11:26:24
On 10/1/2012 3:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
You've only demonstrated your own prejudice against reason.
no comment
Evolution produces many designs that are suboptimal, because natural
selection only
requires that a design be 'good-enough'
suboptimal for what? optimal has a me
On 01 Oct 2012, at 18:03, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Craig Weinberg
wrote:
You're not really answering the question. The neural implants are
refined to the point where thousands of people are walking around
with
them with no problem. Any objective or subje
On 01 Oct 2012, at 18:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/1/2012 2:47 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Conservatives are those who find themselves on top and call it
'natural'.
What a waste of power to be in the top and wanting to do leave
things as they are... In contrast, the progressives supposedly
On 10/1/2012 2:47 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Conservatives are those who find themselves on top and call it 'natural'.
What a waste of power to be in the top and wanting to do leave things as they are... In
contrast, the progressives supposedly consider themselves in the bottom, but stil
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> You're not really answering the question. The neural implants are
>> refined to the point where thousands of people are walking around with
>> them with no problem. Any objective or subjective test thrown at them
>> they pass. There are imp
On Monday, October 1, 2012 11:08:44 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> >> You're suggesting that even if one implant works as well as the
> >> original, multiple implants would not. Is there a critical replacement
> >> limit, 20% yo
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>
>
> Those who have faith in the possibility of brain
> transplants might consider this:
>
> You cannot separate the self (your ID) from the body.
>
> Your skin, the envelope of your body and self,
> is part of you, meaning your self. Why ?
>
On 01 Oct 2012, at 16:32, Roger Clough wrote:
Those who have faith in the possibility of brain
transplants might consider this:
You cannot separate the self (your ID) from the body.
Your skin, the envelope of your body and self,
is part of you, meaning your self. Why ?
If somebody pricks y
Hi Roger Clough,
### ROGER: Quanta are different from particles. They don't move
from A to B along particular paths through space (or even through
space), they move
through all possible mathematical paths - which is to say that they
are everywhere at once-
until one particular path is sele
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> Exactly. It's one thing for a person to use an artificial hand, but what is
> it that learns to use an artificial 'you'? It's hard for me to understand
> how this obvious Grand Canyon is repeatedly glossed over in these
> conversations. Head
Hi Stephen P. King
"intelligent design" is an oxymoronism. You can't have design without
intelligence.
It requires intelligence to form a design, whether by God, by humans or by
nature.
So there had to be some sort of intelligence prior to the Big Bang in order for
the universe
to have des
On Sunday, September 30, 2012 8:02:55 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 9/30/2012 4:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> You aren't seeing my point that if human designers are nothing but evolved
> systems, then they must have the same limitations as evolution itself,
> unless you can explain why t
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> You're suggesting that even if one implant works as well as the
>> original, multiple implants would not. Is there a critical replacement
>> limit, 20% you feel normal but 21% you don't? How have you arrived at
>> this insight?
>
>
> If yo
Hi Stephen P. King
Numbers did not evolve, they always were.
And always will be. Only imperfect things need
to evolve (or can).
All necessary truths have always been.
The Pythagorean Theorem would be useful to
design snowflakes, no ?
Contingency is the world of change, which
is required for
Hi Stephen P. King
Good luck with "improving" Leibniz, but
I see no problem with his ideas. He
even has nonlocal QM in his schema.
Materialists hate that.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/1/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the fo
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
Numbers were there before man.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/1/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-30, 11:04:1
Those who have faith in the possibility of brain
transplants might consider this:
You cannot separate the self (your ID) from the body.
Your skin, the envelope of your body and self,
is part of you, meaning your self. Why ?
If somebody pricks you with a pin, it causes a body reaction.
Yoga als
Hi Stephen P. King
Good idea, but unfortunately monads are not numbers,
numbers will now guide them or replace them.
Monads have to be associated with corporeal bodies down here in
contingia, where crap happens.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/1/2012
"Forever is a long time, especial
Hi Bruno Marchal
My responses are indicated with s
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-30, 13:58:19
Subject: Re: Einstein and space
Hi Roger Clough,
I have regrouped my comments because they are related.
On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:36:24 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> >> I don't doubt that initial experiments would not yield ideal results.
> >> Neural prostheses would initially be used for people with
> >> disabilities. Cochlear
On 10/1/2012 4:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The whole *is* very often more than the parts. Non Löbian entities can
create/emulate the Löbian entities. That is why we can take a very
simple whole as ontology, be it a tiny arithmetic without induction
axioms, or a differential equation (like SWE
2012/9/30 meekerdb
> On 9/30/2012 6:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> Whoever said that does not know what he says:
>
> "There are great differences between evolutionary designs and rational
> design, rational designs are, well, rational, but
> evolutionary designs are idiotic. Mother Nature (
On 01 Oct 2012, at 10:39, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/9/30 Bruno Marchal
On 30 Sep 2012, at 15:54, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
And if you think that weels are superior, NS invented it, because
the invertor of the weel was a product of natural selection. Even
your feeling of superiority
Even if intentionally faked, for sure the article add to theology more than
what Margaret Mead added to Anthropology for years, or what global warmists
are adding to Meteorology ;)
2012/9/30 meekerdb
> On 9/30/2012 4:31 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>> Hehe.
>>
>> Fine.
>>
>> However, the concr
On 01 Oct 2012, at 02:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/30/2012 4:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You aren't seeing my point that if human designers are nothing but
evolved systems, then they must have the same limitations as
evolution itself, unless you can explain why they wouldn't.
More nothing
On 01 Oct 2012, at 01:56, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/30/2012 7:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Stephen P. King > wrote:
On 9/30/2012 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg >
wrote:
Organisms can utilize inorgan
40 matches
Mail list logo
