On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote:
> Non-materialism is not the denial of matter, it just places it as an
> epiphenomenon.
it's irrelevant if mater is fundamental or not, either way it wouldn't
change the fact that a non-materialistic theory is not falsifiable.
> Darwinism is a computer
On 10 March 2015 at 12:58, meekerdb wrote:
> Darwinism would apply to computer viruses if there were computation
> among the viruses for resources.
>
Either a rather good pun or a typo.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To u
On 3/9/2015 3:19 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Non-materialism is not the denial of matter, it just places it as an epiphenomenon.
Darwinism is a computer science theory. It works on DNA but it also works on solutions
to the travelling salesman problem. The problem of weather matter is epiphenomenal
On Tuesday, March 10, 2015, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:24 PM, John Clark > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes > > wrote:
>>
>> >> I never said one word about matter being fundamental, in fact I think
if anything is fundamental it's consciousness not matte
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:19 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 3/9/2015 1:00 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> The fact that non-materialistic theories of mind are not falsifiable does
> not imply that materialistic theories of mind are.
>
>
> Materialistic theories are generally falsifiable (at least in princ
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:24 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> >> I never said one word about matter being fundamental, in fact I think
>>> if anything is fundamental it's consciousness not matter; however I did say
>>> that a non-materialistic theory is not fal
On 10 March 2015 at 07:16, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Ha! Your points seem unassailable, yet, buy example, how many
> neurobiologists are believers in God? This is the crux of the materialism
> argument. If God is not wearing cowboy boots and barkin
"That is the dematerialising control, and that over yonder is the
horizontal hold, up there is the scanner, those are the doors, and that is
a chair with a panda on it. Sheer poetry, dear boy. Now please stop
bothering me." - Doctor Who
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to t
On 09 Mar 2015, at 01:39, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 08:08:29PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Information can only change through learning or forgetting. In a
multiverse (or plenitude), if I learn something, then there must be
other "mes" that learn the complementary facts.
On 09 Mar 2015, at 07:05, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, March 9, 2015, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/8/2015 9:37 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, March 9, 2015, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/8/2015 3:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Monday, March 9, 2015, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/8/20
Ha! Your points seem unassailable, yet, buy example, how many neurobiologists
are believers in God? This is the crux of the materialism argument. If God is
not wearing cowboy boots and barking out orders, they do not concede there
could be this fellow. My question to you is, does the universe, t
On 08 Mar 2015, at 23:47, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/8/2015 2:07 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 March 2015 at 05:36, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote:
I thought <>P meant P was possible?
In the alethic interpretation of modal logic, <> means possible,
and [] means necessary.
Be
On 08 Mar 2015, at 22:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/8/2015 11:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2015, at 17:23, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:42 PM, John Clark
wrote:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Telmo Menezes > wrote:
>> I have generally been inclined to agree with
On 3/9/2015 1:00 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
The fact that non-materialistic theories of mind are not falsifiable does not imply that
materialistic theories of mind are.
Materialistic theories are generally falsifiable (at least in principle) because "matter"
is defined to be something we have sh
On 08 Mar 2015, at 22:07, LizR wrote:
On 9 March 2015 at 05:36, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Mar 2015, at 09:36, LizR wrote:
I thought <>P meant P was possible?
In the alethic interpretation of modal logic, <> means possible, and
[] means necessary.
Before I get lost in logic, just going b
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> I never said one word about matter being fundamental, in fact I think if
>> anything is fundamental it's consciousness not matter; however I did say
>> that a non-materialistic theory is not falsifiable and you said I was
>> confused. So cure my confusi
On 08 Mar 2015, at 21:34, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
Ah! But I never claimed that neurobiology, also know as materialism,
is the single, best, explanation for consciousness.
Nurobiology is not known as materialism. ture, it is plausible that
most neurobiologist are materialist (
On 08 Mar 2015, at 19:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/8/2015 1:26 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 8 March 2015 at 09:33, meekerdb wrote:
I like Graziano's theory of consciousness.
http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/how-consciousness-works/
I have generally been inclined to agree with JKC that n
On 02 Mar 2015, at 00:08, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2015 2:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2015 at 11:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/1/2015 1:39 PM, LizR wrote:
If Bruno uses God to mean an origin, perhaps he should call it 0
(zero) or { } - the empty set?
I think he wants to mean the underlying bas
On 03 Mar 2015, at 21:03, PGC wrote:
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 6:32:27 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> As Kronecker said, "Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott, alles
> Übrige ist Menschenwerk."
Ah, thanks for the original text. The comp variant is
"Die ganze Zahl schuf der liebe Gott
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 08 Mar 2015, at 17:23, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:42 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Telmo Menezes
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> I have generally been inclined to agree with JKC that natural
>
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 3:53 AM, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> > Mater doesn't have to be fundamental for your lab to work.
>
>
> I never said one word about matter being fundamental, in fact I think if
> anything is fundamental it's consciousness not matter; h
22 matches
Mail list logo
