On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
> On 23/06/2016 3:04 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 21 Jun 2016, at 04:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On 21/06/2016 3:14 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 20 Jun 2016, at 04:00, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On 20/06/2016
On 6/19/2016 7:00 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 20/06/2016 4:09 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 6/19/2016 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
To ask for that explanation to also somehow encompass the
experience itself is both incoherent, and an illegitimate use of
the word 'explanation'."
Of course.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:12 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >
>> Would you say other physical universes are possible having completely
>> different physical laws and without atoms and molecules as we know them
On 23/06/2016 3:04 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jun 2016, at 04:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 21/06/2016 3:14 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jun 2016, at 04:00, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 20/06/2016 4:09 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
The alternative, which Bruno actually suggested once but disowns,
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 Jason Resch wrote:
>
> Would you say other physical universes are possible having completely
> different physical laws and without atoms and molecules as we know them in
> our universe?
>
I would say it would have to have *SOMETHING* physical as
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 John Mikes wrote:
Would you care to tell how you define 'life'?
>
No, I would not care to do so..
> or: 'intelligent behavior'?
>
No.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 4:35 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >>
>>> mathematics is the best language for describing physics, but the point
>>> is mathematics is a *language*
>>> * *
>>> and
>>>
> For every sentence about how intelligent behavior works there are a thousand
> about how consciousness works because theorizing about consciousness is many
> orders of magnitude easier than theorizing about intelligence due to the
> fact that intelligence theories actually have to perform while
JKC wrote:
--
Atoms are more fundamental than molecules but molecules have properties
than atoms don't have, and molecules are more fundamental than life but
life has properties that molecules don't have; in the same way
consciousness needs intelligent behavior and
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> mathematics is the best language for describing physics, but the point is
>> mathematics is a *language*
>> * *
>> and
>>
>> physics isn't, physics just *is*.
>
>
> >
> I give an example, with arithmetic.
On 21 Jun 2016, at 03:08, John Clark wrote:
JKC Wrote:
Is ??? really the floor or does ??? need an explanation too?
John Mikes Wrote:
JKC: why do you think your ??? is T H E FLOOR?
???
> there may be innumerable lower levels... we just don't have
the brains to think
On 21 Jun 2016, at 04:08, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 21/06/2016 3:14 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jun 2016, at 04:00, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 20/06/2016 4:09 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
The alternative, which Bruno actually suggested once but disowns,
is for explanations to form a "virtuous
On 21 Jun 2016, at 18:29, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Jason Resch
wrote:
> Bruno has shown that arithmetic is a viable candidate for
explaining physics:
Bruno wasn't the first to discover that, people
have known for 400 years
On 21 Jun 2016, at 23:18, Telmo Menezes wrote (to Peter Sas):
I think it's quite clear you're a fellow neo-platonist :)
No doubt :)
Your ideas touch many things that have been discussed on this mailing
list throughout the years, especially Bruno Marchal's ideas. You
diverge in many ways
14 matches
Mail list logo