On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:59:20AM +0200, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
In this case, the hard step that is relevant is the first: if the most
simple form of extraterrestrial life exist then the biocentrist hypothesis
is false. That is a strong statement.
It certainly is. One that I suspect
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 11:37:14 PM UTC-4, Brian Tenneson wrote:
You keep claiming that we understand this and that or know this and
that. And, yes, saying something along the lines of we know we understand
Perhaps I missed something in my reading of that SIAM article, but there
seems to be no mention of what causes consciousness. In that regard I
prefer the suggestion of P C M Davies that consciousness manifests in a
holographic universe when phi exceeds the Lloyd Limit for computations in
our
Although instead of biocentrist it sould be called observercentrist or
mindcentrist hypothesis
But the nominalistic-positivistic censorship is too strong
2013/4/24 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:59:20AM +0200, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
In this case, the
On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 4:31:55 AM UTC-4, Brian Tenneson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 11:37:14 PM UTC-4, Brian Tenneson wrote:
You keep claiming that we understand this and that or know
On 23 Apr 2013, at 22:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/23/2013 12:27 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 01:02:59PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 , Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
If so and consciousness is a all or nothing matter and is not on a
On 23 Apr 2013, at 22:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 5:11:06 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Apr 2013, at 19:14, Craig Weinberg wrote:
A quote from someone on Facebook. Any comments?
Computers can only do computations for rational numbers, not for
real
On 23 Apr 2013, at 22:26, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:58:33 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
If you think about your own vision, you can see millions of pixels
constantly, you are aware of the
On 23 Apr 2013, at 23:21, John Mikes wrote:
And what good does it do to H A V E nations? Starting wars?
Looking down on every other nation? Exploiting strangers/foreigners?
Nationalism is a pest in the human world.
You are right saying that it is - sort of - a religious aberration,
On 24 Apr 2013, at 00:10, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/23/2013 2:21 PM, John Mikes wrote:
And what good does it do to H A V E nations? Starting wars?
Looking down on every other nation? Exploiting strangers/foreigners?
Nationalism is a pest in the human world.
You are right saying that it is -
Roget told about the nation. Not about the nationalism. They have little
to do in common. In fact when natíons lose their religión, nationalism is
the sustitutive religión that takes over, most of the time, before the
nation is lost.
One thing is a nation and another is nationalism. A nation
On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:50:07 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Apr 2013, at 22:26, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:58:33 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
If you think about your own
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 4:31:55 AM UTC-4, Brian Tenneson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 11:37:14 PM UTC-4, Brian Tenneson wrote:
On 24 Apr 2013, at 05:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 7:27:02 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 07:38:36AM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If you are sleepwalking, are 'you' conscious or not conscious?
Dunno. As far as I know, I've never done it.
On 23 Apr 2013, at 21:29, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Interesting read.
The problem I have with this is that in set theory, there are
several examples of sets who owe their existence to axioms alone. In
other words, there is an axiom that states there is a set X such
that (blah, blah, blah).
On 31 Dec 2012, at 18:55, Brian Tenneson wrote:
So is that a yes? If so, can you stipulate such a physical object?
On Sunday, December 30, 2012 9:08:27 PM UTC-8, Brent wrote:
On 12/30/2012 11:23 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Is there a physical object that exists physically which is not
On 24 Apr 2013, at 15:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:50:07 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Apr 2013, at 22:26, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:58:33 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Craig Weinberg
On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:09:44 AM UTC-4, Brian Tenneson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 4:31:55 AM UTC-4, Brian Tenneson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Craig Weinberg
I probably shouldn't be talking to someone who thinks distinguishing a sack
of potatoes from a woman means understanding women.
News flash: understand tacitly implies understand completely.
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wednesday, April 24,
Even if it was true that nations die when they lose their religion that
wouldn't mean that religion tells the truth, in fact we know for a fact
that most of them are wrong because there are lots of religions and most of
them contradict each other. But is it even true that religion promotes
You are conflating peace with stability.
Terren
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 1:01 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Even if it was true that nations die when they lose their religion that
wouldn't mean that religion tells the truth, in fact we know for a fact
that most of them are wrong
2013/4/24 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
Even if it was true that nations die when they lose their religion that
wouldn't mean that religion tells the truth, in fact we know for a fact
that most of them are wrong because there are lots of religions and most of
them contradict each other. But
On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:58:08 AM UTC-4, Brian Tenneson wrote:
I probably shouldn't be talking to someone who thinks distinguishing a
sack of potatoes from a woman means understanding women.
News flash: understand tacitly implies understand completely.
If you define complete
Perhaps one should define things such that it can be impolemented by
any arbitrary finite state machine, no mater how large. Then, while
there may not be a limit to the capacity of finite state machines, each
such machine has a finite capacity, and therefore in none of these
machines can one
On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:49:00 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Apr 2013, at 22:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 5:11:06 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Apr 2013, at 19:14, Craig Weinberg wrote:
A quote from someone on Facebook. Any comments?
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 01:01:09PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
Even if it was true that nations die when they lose their religion that
wouldn't mean that religion tells the truth, in fact we know for a fact
that most of them are wrong because there are lots of religions and most of
them
http://multisenserealism.com/2013/04/25/a-deeper-look-a-peripheral-vision/
[image: image]
When peripheral vision is being explained, an image like the one on the
right is often used to show how only a small area around our point of focus
is in high definition. The periphery is shown to be
27 matches
Mail list logo
