Re: Observation versus assumption

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:25 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > physics, indeed, can clearly do something that mathematics cannot do > Correct. > > *but that does not mean that such a something is not explainable by > mathematics.* > Correct again. The English language can be used to explain how the

Re: Matter is forever

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 1:53:49 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: > > What does "matter" even mean ? Saying "matter is forever" is like saying > "sdgasdga is forever". Both sentences carry the same amount of meaning. > Is consciousness bounded in time? Is it eternal? Or is it timeless?

Re: Matter is forever

What does "matter" even mean ? Saying "matter is forever" is like saying "sdgasdga is forever". Both sentences carry the same amount of meaning. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop

Re: subjective experience

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 6:31:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Jul 2019, at 11:53, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > If brains (or future biomachines) are standard Turing, then we can make a > conscious robot out of standard processors. > > > OK. > > The expression is a bit fuzzy.

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 14 Jul 2019, at 23:46, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:32 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > I never said that Mechanism is a dodgy idea. I explains that it is > > incompatible with (weak) materialism (the belief matter has a irreducible > >

Re: Observation versus assumption

The quote are not correct. The format is hard to manage. I try, but apology if I missed some of your point. > On 14 Jul 2019, at 12:31, John Clark wrote: > > Bruno Marchal Wrote: > > > That's why INTEL couldn't make computers out of them and had to use atoms > made silicon that obey the

Re: Matter is forever

This reflects the two main Vedas: Advaita Veda, non dualist, and monist immaterialist. And the Vaita Veda, dualist and (weakly) materialist. See my paper on the West and the East, for a little more, and how the []p/[]p duality makes possible to interpret the Vaita Veda as a phenomenology in the

Re: subjective experience

> On 15 Jul 2019, at 00:24, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 11:01 PM PGC > wrote: > On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 11:00:30 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 13 Jul 2019, at 12:31, PGC > wrote: >> On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 10:41:00 AM UTC+2,

Re: subjective experience

> On 14 Jul 2019, at 15:01, PGC wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 11:00:30 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 13 Jul 2019, at 12:31, PGC > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 10:41:00 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> I need a formula, and means to test

Re: subjective experience

> On 14 Jul 2019, at 14:45, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 7/13/2019 1:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> And it doesn't comport with your definition. >> I am intersted in knowing why you say that. Which part doesn’t comport ? > > For one thing, it isn't consciousness

Re: subjective experience

> On 14 Jul 2019, at 11:53, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 4:08:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 13 Jul 2019, at 23:40, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, July 13, 2019 at 3:41:00 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 12 Jul 2019, at