Re: Losing Control

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> How could something non-living lead to something living? > > > Non-living and living are just different qualities of experience. Living > systems are nested non-living systems, which gives rise to mortality and > condenses an eternal perc

Re: Re: [FOM] From theorems of infinity to axioms of infinity

It's a good discussion. In fact I've been independently thinking about the matter of Dedekind's original argument as it's discussed in Webb's book "Mechanism, Mentalism, and Metamathematics" (a book Bruno has referred to multiple times on this list). Does anyone know of other attempts to prove

Fwd: Re: [FOM] From theorems of infinity to axioms of infinity

Hi Folks, I apologize for crossforwarding a post, but this one is too good to not... Original Message Subject:Re: [FOM] From theorems of infinity to axioms of infinity Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:23:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Timothy Y. Chow Reply-To: tc...@alum.

Re: Losing Control

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> At least you now agree that the atoms in my body could be replaced and >> I would feel the same. What if the atoms were replaced by a person: >> would I still have free will or would I, as you claim for a computer, >> only have the will o

Re: G.K. Chesterton on Materialism

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 9:44:38 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > On 3/20/2013 6:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 8:26:04 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: >> >> On 3/20/2013 4:51 PM, Tom Bayley wrote: >> >> There is not a "direct link" between the light switch and the

Re: Losing Control

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 7:32:11 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > >> You say "it doesn't make sense" that intentional could come from > >> unintentional but I don't see that at all, not at all. You claim to > >> have an insigh

Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity

On 3/20/2013 9:41 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/20/2013 6:32 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: >> >> On 3/20/2013 6:37 PM, meekerdb wrote: >>> On 3/20/2013 2:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/20/2013 4:07 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/20/2013 11:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> http://www.sci

Re: G.K. Chesterton on Materialism

On 3/20/2013 6:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 8:26:04 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 3/20/2013 4:51 PM, Tom Bayley wrote: There is not a "direct link" between the light switch and the light going on either, the closing of the light switch just cause

Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity

On 3/20/2013 6:32 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/20/2013 6:37 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/20/2013 2:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/20/2013 4:07 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/20/2013 11:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130320115111.htm "We are examining

Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 6:52:20 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > > On 3/20/2013 6:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 5:30:58 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: >> >> >> On 3/20/2013 4:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, March 2

Re: G.K. Chesterton on Materialism

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 8:26:04 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > On 3/20/2013 4:51 PM, Tom Bayley wrote: > > There is not a "direct link" between the light switch and the light >> going on either, the closing of the light switch just caused a current to >> flow in the wire, the current flow

Re: G.K. Chesterton on Materialism

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 7:51:50 PM UTC-4, Tom Bayley wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 5:44:23 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 , Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >>> We can write books and other people can read them, so that must > prove that consciousness is

Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity

On 3/20/2013 6:37 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/20/2013 2:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: >> >> On 3/20/2013 4:07 PM, meekerdb wrote: >>> On 3/20/2013 11:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130320115111.htm "We are examining the activity in the cereb

Re: G.K. Chesterton on Materialism

On 3/20/2013 4:51 PM, Tom Bayley wrote: There is not a "direct link" between the light switch and the light going on either, the closing of the light switch just caused a current to flow in the wire, the current flow didn't cause the light either it just caused the filament in the

Re: G.K. Chesterton on Materialism

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 5:44:23 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 , Craig Weinberg >wrote: > > >>> We can write books and other people can read them, so that must prove that consciousness is not caused by neurochemistry. >>> >>> >> What the hell??? >>> >> >> > Bo

Re: Losing Control

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> You say "it doesn't make sense" that intentional could come from >> unintentional but I don't see that at all, not at all. You claim to >> have an insight that other people don't have. > > > Lots of people have had this insight. You say th

Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity

On 3/20/2013 6:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 5:30:58 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > > On 3/20/2013 4:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 4:07:10 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: >> >> On 3/20/2013 11:16 AM, Craig Weinbe

Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity

On 3/20/2013 3:31 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 6:11:18 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 3/20/2013 1:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 4:07:10 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 3/20/2013 11:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://www.s

Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity

On 3/20/2013 2:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/20/2013 4:07 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/20/2013 11:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130320115111.htm "We are examining the activity in the cerebral cortex /as a whole/. The brain is a non-stop, always-ac

Re: Mind is a quantum computer

On 3/20/2013 2:19 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/20/2013 4:04 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 3/20/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/20/2013 6:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Mar 2013, at 23:40, meekerdb wrote: I think it likely that the first applications will be providing soldiers with a

Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 6:11:18 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > On 3/20/2013 1:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 4:07:10 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: >> >> On 3/20/2013 11:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130320115111

Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 5:30:58 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > > On 3/20/2013 4:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 4:07:10 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: >> >> On 3/20/2013 11:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/

Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity

On 3/20/2013 1:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 4:07:10 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 3/20/2013 11:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130320115111.htm "

Re: True?

On 3/20/2013 1:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 20.03.2013 20:18 meekerdb said the following: On 3/20/2013 2:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 19.03.2013 22:25 Alberto G. Corona said the following: ... I see a bit of irony in the fact that people who believe in physical reality often call to a

Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity

On 3/20/2013 4:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 4:07:10 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > On 3/20/2013 11:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130320115111.htm >>

Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity

On 3/20/2013 4:07 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/20/2013 11:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130320115111.htm >> >> "We are examining the activity in the cerebral cortex /as a >> whole/. The brain is a non-stop, always-active system. When we >> perceive some

Re: Mind is a quantum computer

On 3/20/2013 4:04 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 3/20/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: >> On 3/20/2013 6:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Mar 2013, at 23:40, meekerdb wrote: I think it likely that the first applications will be providing soldiers with augmented senses and communicat

Re: True?

On 3/20/2013 4:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > On 20.03.2013 20:18 meekerdb said the following: >> On 3/20/2013 2:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: >>> On 19.03.2013 22:25 Alberto G. Corona said the following: > > ... > >>> I see a bit of irony in the fact that people who believe in >>> physical reality

Re: True?

On 3/20/2013 2:51 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > > > 2013/3/20 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> > > > On 19 Mar 2013, at 22:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > >> Since I惴 more in the side of Aquinas/Aristotle -or even Plato >> sometimes- > > ? > I see Plato and Aristotle as

Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 4:07:10 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > On 3/20/2013 11:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130320115111.htm > > "We are examining the activity in the cerebral cortex *as a whole*. The > brain is a non-stop, always-active syste

Re: A philosopher making the Duplication argument

On 3/20/2013 6:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Stephen P. King > wrote: >> http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/What-is-the-Nature-of-Personal-Identity-Peter-van-Inwagen-/176 > He starts off with a straightforward, materialist position. Then he > reveal

Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity

On 3/20/2013 11:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130320115111.htm "We are examining the activity in the cerebral cortex /as a whole/. The brain is a non-stop, always-active system. When we perceive something, the information does not end up in a specifi

Re: Mind is a quantum computer

On 3/20/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/20/2013 6:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Mar 2013, at 23:40, meekerdb wrote: I think it likely that the first applications will be providing soldiers with augmented senses and communication. Just as AI research has been funded by the militar

Re: True?

On 20.03.2013 20:18 meekerdb said the following: On 3/20/2013 2:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 19.03.2013 22:25 Alberto G. Corona said the following: ... I see a bit of irony in the fact that people who believe in physical reality often call to a principle developed by Occam. What's the i

Re: True?

On 3/20/2013 2:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 19.03.2013 22:25 Alberto G. Corona said the following: Since I´m more in the side of Aquinas/Aristotle -or even Plato sometimes- I don not share the Occam views.Occam was a nominalist, that is rejected the existence of universals, he did not like t

Re: G.K. Chesterton on Materialism

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:44:23 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 , Craig Weinberg >wrote: > > >>> We can write books and other people can read them, so that must prove that consciousness is not caused by neurochemistry. >>> >>> >> What the hell??? >>> >> >> >

'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130320115111.htm "We are examining the activity in the cerebral cortex *as a whole*. The brain is a non-stop, always-active system. When we perceive something, the information does not end up in a specific *part* of our brain. Rather, it is added to

Re: Mind is a quantum computer

On 3/20/2013 6:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 19 Mar 2013, at 23:40, meekerdb wrote: >> I think it likely that the first applications will be providing >> soldiers with augmented senses and communication. Just as AI >> research has been funded by the military. Threats of war are often >> used

Re: G.K. Chesterton on Materialism

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 , Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> We can write books and other people can read them, so that must prove >>> that consciousness is not caused by neurochemistry. >>> >> >> >> What the hell??? >> > > > Books aren't neurological, right? > Right, but they are certainly material. > The

Re: G.K. Chesterton on Materialism

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:55:50 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > >> We can write books and other people can read them, so that must prove >> that consciousness is not caused by neurochemistry. >> > > What the hell??? > Boo

Re: G.K. Chesterton on Materialism

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> We can write books and other people can read them, so that must prove > that consciousness is not caused by neurochemistry. > What the hell??? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: G.K. Chesterton on Materialism

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:37:54 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 Tom Bayley > wrote: > > > I always hear an audible click very shortly after I see the light >> switch on. There is no direct causation, >> > > Yes but how do you know that, how can you prove there is no c

Re: G.K. Chesterton on Materialism

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> If when X happens Y always happens AND when X doesn't happen Y never > happens then we can say with great confidence that X causes Y because > that's what the word "causes" means. > > > Does this not imply that X causes Y if and only if

Re: G.K. Chesterton on Materialism

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:09:24 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 Craig Weinberg >wrote: > > >> 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 it, then X causes Y.

Re: G.K. Chesterton on Materialism

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 Tom Bayley wrote: > I always hear an audible click very shortly after I see the light switch > on. There is no direct causation, > Yes but how do you know that, how can you prove there is no causation? It's easy, just buy another light switch of the same manufacturer but do

Re: G.K. Chesterton on Materialism

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 11:35:00 AM UTC-4, Tom Bayley wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 2:39:40 PM UTC, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:44:02 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> >>> > Corre

Re: G.K. Chesterton on Materialism

On 20 Mar 2013, at 17:09, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 Craig Weinberg wrote: >> 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 it, then X causes Y. IT'S WHAT THE WORD "CAUSES" MEAN

Re: G.K. Chesterton on Materialism

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 Craig Weinberg wrote: >> 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 it, then X causes Y. IT'S WHAT THE WORD "CAUSES" MEANS! >> > > > Two flowers bloom at sunrise every

Re: A philosopher making the Duplication argument

On 20 Mar 2013, at 11:43, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Stephen P. King > wrote: http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/What-is-the-Nature-of-Personal-Identity-Peter-van-Inwagen-/176 He starts off with a straightforward, materialist position. Then he reveals

Re: G.K. Chesterton on Materialism

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 2:39:40 PM UTC, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:44:02 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> > Correlation, even 100% correlation, does not equal causation. >> >> >> BULLSHIT! If whe

Re: Losing Control

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 4:03:29 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > >> All I am saying is that you should start with something that is not > >> already loaded with your conclusion, then reach your conclusion > >> through argume

Re: G.K. Chesterton on Materialism

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:44:02 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > > 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

Re: Losing Control

On 20 Mar 2013, at 00:14, meekerdb wrote: On 3/19/2013 3:19 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Craig Weinberg > wrote: I'll agree on your terms, but you have to make it explicit. My terms are: Super-Personal Intentional (Intui

Re: A philosopher making the Duplication argument

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: > http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/What-is-the-Nature-of-Personal-Identity-Peter-van-Inwagen-/176 He starts off with a straightforward, materialist position. Then he reveals he is a Christian, believes in the resurrection of the bo

Re: Mind is a quantum computer

On 19 Mar 2013, at 23:40, meekerdb wrote: 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 Wolpe

Re: True?

On 19 Mar 2013, at 22:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Since I´m more in the side of Aquinas/Aristotle -or even Plato sometimes- ? I see Plato and Aristotle as the most opposite view we can have on reality. (To be sure by Aristotle I means its usual interpretation by the followers. Aristotle

Re: True?

On 19.03.2013 22:25 Alberto G. Corona said the following: Since I´m more in the side of Aquinas/Aristotle -or even Plato sometimes- I don not share the Occam views.Occam was a nominalist, that is rejected the existence of universals, he did not like to think in terms universals, because if unive

Re: Losing Control

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> All I am saying is that you should start with something that is not >> already loaded with your conclusion, then reach your conclusion >> through argument. If I "intend" to do something I do it because I want >> to do it. On the face of i