Think of the brain as one airport among many, the mind(s) as national air
traffic.
Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 3/19/2013
Coincidences are God's way of remaining anonymous.
- Albert Einstein
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
On 18.03.2013 21:02 John Mikes said the following:
friends: don't put so much brain-grease into Free Will, please! It is
the religious mambo-jumbo put into the mind of the poor-believers in
ancient times to make them responsible for deeds the powerful
disliked - and consequently: make them
On 19.03.2013 02:05 Stathis Papaioannou said the following:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you say that free will is compatible with determinism then you
are an compatibilist, otherwise you are an incompatibilist. Why
do you try to make the
On 18.03.2013 19:39 Bruno Marchal said the following:
Hi Roger,
On 18 Mar 2013, at 12:48, Roger Clough wrote:
Since mind is an MQS or Multiple Quantum Superposition, it can
process information at the rate of a quantum computer.
Since you seem to talk philosophy, let me translate what you
On 18 Mar 2013, at 21:02, John Mikes wrote:
friends:
don't put so much brain-grease into Free Will, please!
It is the religious mambo-jumbo put into the mind of the poor-
believers in ancient times to make them responsible for deeds the
powerful disliked - and consequently: make them
On 18 Mar 2013, at 21:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 18, 2013 11:33:17 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
G K Chesterton wrote:
For we must remember that the materialist philosophy (whether true
or not) is certainly much more limiting than any religion.
That is absolutely true,
On 19 Mar 2013, at 02:06, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 07:39:44PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Roger,
On 18 Mar 2013, at 12:48, Roger Clough wrote:
Since mind is an MQS or Multiple Quantum Superposition, it can
process information at the rate of a quantum computer.
On 19 Mar 2013, at 10:48, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 18.03.2013 19:39 Bruno Marchal said the following:
Hi Roger,
On 18 Mar 2013, at 12:48, Roger Clough wrote:
Since mind is an MQS or Multiple Quantum Superposition, it can
process information at the rate of a quantum computer.
Since you
On Monday, March 18, 2013 8:15:39 PM UTC, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 18, 2013 11:33:17 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
G K Chesterton wrote:
For we must remember that the materialist philosophy (whether true or
not) is certainly much more limiting than any religion.
That is
On 19.03.2013 12:39 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 10:48, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 18.03.2013 19:39 Bruno Marchal said the following:
...
1) show me a human as good as a quantum computer for finding a
needle in a haystack.
Could you show me a quantum computer that
On 19 Mar 2013, at 15:27, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.03.2013 12:39 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 10:48, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 18.03.2013 19:39 Bruno Marchal said the following:
...
1) show me a human as good as a quantum computer for finding a
needle in a
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 6:55:30 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 18 Mar 2013, at 21:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 18, 2013 11:33:17 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
G K Chesterton wrote:
For we must remember that the materialist philosophy (whether true or
not) is
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 07:39:44PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Roger,
On 18 Mar 2013, at 12:48, Roger Clough wrote:
Since mind is an MQS or Multiple Quantum Superposition, it can
process information at the
On 19 Mar 2013, at 16:52, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 07:39:44PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Roger,
On 18 Mar 2013, at 12:48, Roger Clough wrote:
Since mind is an MQS or Multiple Quantum
On Monday, March 18, 2013 9:05:13 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
If you say that free will is compatible with determinism then you are
an compatibilist, otherwise you are an incompatibilist. Why do you
On Friday, March 8, 2013 11:11:38 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 3/8/2013 11:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi,
Is the following a sound claim?
...scientifically meaningful propositions are questions about the past,
the present, the future, or the eternal laws that:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
The man who thinks he is logical is often just stubborn.
If being ruled by your head rather than your gut or your crotch is stubborn
then being stubborn is a virtue.
There are many things related to consciousness
On 19.03.2013 16:38 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 15:27, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.03.2013 12:39 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 10:48, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 18.03.2013 19:39 Bruno Marchal said the following:
...
1) show me a human as
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 16:52, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 07:39:44PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Roger,
On 18 Mar 2013,
On 19 Mar 2013, at 17:34, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 16:52, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 07:39:44PM
Factorize 13195212121
Rain Man?
Even Rain Man couldn't figure out that 2^57885161 -1 is a prime number as a
conventional computer did about a month ago, the number has 17,425,170
digits. This is the sort of problem that quantum computers would be
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 12:34:20 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
The man who thinks he is logical is often just stubborn.
If being ruled by your head rather than your gut or your crotch is
On 19 Mar 2013, at 17:34, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.03.2013 16:38 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 15:27, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.03.2013 12:39 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 10:48, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 18.03.2013 19:39 Bruno Marchal
No.
What means truth value of something? in which range of phenomena? in all
phenomena applicable? how you can test all phenomena applicable to a
theory? you can't. The only thing that you can do is to test a particular
prediction that the theory predict that may never happen (Popperian
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Intimate relation is not causality. The stock market has been famously
been related to skirt lengths
If when skirt lengths changed there was ALWAYS a change in the stock market
in the same direction, and when the
On 19.03.2013 18:37 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
No.
...
Then, to escape the Feyerabend trap, there is necessary additional
criteria, such is the economy of axioms or the Occam Razor as
criteria for theory acceptance. Fortunately it works, because it
seems that we live in a simple,
On 19 Mar 2013, at 18:13, John Clark wrote:
Factorize 13195212121
Rain Man?
Even Rain Man couldn't figure out that 2^57885161 -1 is a prime
number as a conventional computer did about a month ago, the number
has 17,425,170 digits. This is the sort
On 19 Mar 2013, at 18:35, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 17:34, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
snip (see the preview post)
As an example, I could point you to the Genome Wager between Lewis
Wolpert and Rupert Sheldrake
http://www.sheldrake.org/DC/controversies/genomewager.html
On 19 Mar 2013, at 18:37, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
No.
What means truth value of something? in which range of phenomena?
in all phenomena applicable? how you can test all phenomena
applicable to a theory?
That's what the theory is all about, if done honestly.
you can't.
of course
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:38:21 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Intimate relation is not causality. The stock market has been famously
been related to skirt lengths
If when skirt lengths changed
On 19.03.2013 19:17 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:38:21 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Intimate relation is not causality. The stock market has been
famously been related
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 2:24:40 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 19.03.2013 19:17 Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 1:38:21 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
We need to agree on terminology if we're going to have a discussion at
all. Have aliens visited the Earth? We need to agree that an alien
is a being born on another planet. It doesn't mean we agree on the
facts, but
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 05:05:25PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 16:52, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Russell Standish
as a quantum computer, since random oracles are another way of
bridging computational complexity classes.
My point to Russell
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 5:37:34 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
We need to agree on terminology if we're going to have a discussion at
all. Have aliens visited the Earth? We need to agree that an alien
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll agree on your terms, but you have to make it explicit.
My terms are:
Super-Personal Intentional (Intuition)
|
http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/What-is-the-Nature-of-Personal-Identity-Peter-van-Inwagen-/176
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
On 3/19/2013 10:37 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
No.
What means truth value of something? in which range of phenomena? in all phenomena
applicable? how you can test all phenomena applicable to a theory? you can't. The only
thing that you can do is to test a particular prediction that the theory
On 3/19/2013 11:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 18:35, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Mar 2013, at 17:34, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
snip (see the preview post)
As an example, I could point you to the Genome Wager between Lewis Wolpert and Rupert
Sheldrake
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 6:19:22 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I'll agree on your terms, but you have to make it explicit.
My terms are:
Super-Personal
On 3/19/2013 6:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:
Of course it works in the sense that the selected theory will save the
facts, because you only consider theories that are not contradicted by
the facts - and if you are fortunate enough to have more than one,
then you consider Occams razor and esthetic
On 3/19/2013 3:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll agree on your terms, but you have to make it explicit.
My terms are:
Super-Personal Intentional (Intuition)
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 7:14:14 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 3/19/2013 3:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I'll agree on your terms, but you have to make it explicit.
My terms are:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 6:19:22 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'll agree on your terms, but you have to make it explicit.
My terms
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 8:09:47 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 6:19:22 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Correlation, even 100% correlation, does not equal causation.
BULLSHIT! If when X is changed there is ALWAYS a change in Y in the same
direction, and when Y changes you can ALWAYS find a change in X that
preceded
46 matches
Mail list logo