.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group
/describe the observations.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL
Brent Meeker wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[SP] The common sense view is that there is an
underlying primitive physical reality generating this appearance
Your assumption of underlying primitive physical reality puts you
in the line of believers. It is not necessary to make
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
On Feb 25, 2:06 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in
accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined
by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute
to demonstrate the truth. But with each successive proof,
clearer and finer, more pleasant, agreeable, radiant levels of
knowledge, scenes of acquaintanceship, and windows of love, were
opened and revealed. I listened and learned.
On Feb 26, 8:50 pm, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Klortho wrote
am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
Ronald,
Of course the main constraints are your audience, Star Trek fans, who
usually like talking about frontiers of physics and even mind/body
problem issues etc., but also your own background (I don't know what
it is) prompts
On Jul 12, 2:22 pm, ronaldheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can I explain the Star Trek universe(s) as being a part of Level I or
Level III?
The “Tegmark's levels” is pure simplification for the consumption by
laymen. There are no Multiverse levels; it is continuum of the same
concept
On Jul 12, 2:22 pm, ronaldheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can I explain the Star Trek universe(s) as being a part of Level I or
Level III?
The “Tegmark's levels” is pure simplification for the consumption by
laymen. There are no Multiverse levels; it is continuum of the same
concept
Hal Finney writes:
: Paper in white the floor of the room, and rule it off in one-foot
: squares. Down on one's hands and knees, write in the first square
: a set of equations conceived as able to govern the physics of the
: universe. Think more overnight. Next day put a better set of
at ONE and TWO above. Abandon philsophy at
yopur peril, but use it's output prudently and you will be of a broader ilk.
cheers,
Colin Hales
-Original Message-
From: Lee Corbin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:12 AM
To: EverythingList
Subject: Reality vs
[col]
I aologise in advance for my crap spelling. My fingers don;t type what I think.
That's the relaity of it! :-) Warning... I am also adopting Lee-style bombast
because I feel like venting. Don't be too precious about it! :-)
[Lee]
You're right. I must be more direct. Okay, here it is:
Hi Imo,
I'd concur with Bruno in 'nice try'. I have lost count of the number of times I
have seen someone dive in with a proclaimation like yours. I include myself in
this :P
My reacent outburst is an example!
I can only encourage you to follow your ideaS and poke every eye you see. A bit
of
Hi Bruno,
Now look at science.
We do correlations of perceptual artefacts = _contents_ of phenomenal
consiousness to the point of handing out _Nobel prizes_ for depictions
of correlated artefacts of our phenomenal fields.
AND THEN
we deny phenomenal consciousness? Declare it
I hereby promise to try really hard with the spelling
Hi Bruno,
Now look at science.
We do correlations of perceptual artefacts = _contents_ of phenomenal
consiousness to the point of handing out _Nobel prizes_ for
depictions of correlated artefacts of our phenomenal fields.
AND THEN
[-Original Message-Tom Caylor wrote:]
May I offer the following quote as a potential catalyst for Bruno and Colin:
If thought is laryngeal motion, how should any one think more truly than the
wind blows? All movements of bodies are equally necessary, but they cannot be
discriminated as true
Lee wrote:
Interesting note about mind: there is no German language
equivalent for it. Another reason to be *very* careful when
employing it. Sarcastic comment about the possibility of
Teutonic zombies elided.
In a very deep (but non-mathematical) book, What is Thought?
by Eric Baum, the author
[Lee wrote:]
Interesting note about mind: there is no German language
equivalent for it. Another reason to be *very* careful when
employing it. Sarcastic comment about the possibility of
Teutonic zombies elided.
In a very deep (but non-mathematical) book, What is Thought?
by Eric Baum, the
[Lee wrote:]
Interesting note about mind: there is no German language
equivalent for it. Another reason to be *very* careful when
employing it. Sarcastic comment about the possibility of
Teutonic zombies elided.
In a very deep (but non-mathematical) book, What is Thought?
by Eric Baum, the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brent Meeker writes:
On 31-Jul-05, you wrote:
[-Original Message-Tom Caylor wrote:] May I offer the following quote
as a potential catalyst for Bruno and Colin:
...
Our scientific evidentiary process is based on the fallacy of the assumed
existence
John M:
snip:)
To Searle's book-title: it implies that we already
HAVE discovered what the 'mind' is. Well, we did not.
At least not to the satisfaction of the advanced
thinking community.
John M
I think the name was a play the name of another book
The discovery of the mind by Bruno
Hi again,
I finally found the switch to prepend onto my email!
To try and passivate Brent's angst a little
The model that I need to unfurl is huge. It's the biggest structure I have ever
devised. It has taken me years to create and test against all manner of brain
data (pathological
Stuff for Brent and more.
1) Phenomenality
Definition:
Block N. 2003. Consciousness, Philosophical Issues about. In: Nadel L, editor.
Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. London: Nature Pub. Group.
What's phenomenality? Did you look for it in a brain?
Yes. That's the whole issue.
My final ramblings.
From: Bruno Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Moi
Reality vs perception of reality? I vote we work really hard on the
latter and drop all ascription in relation to the former. A
significant dose of humility indeed.
Bruno
I don't think objective reality can
Hi,
(via) Reality vs. Perception of Reality
In answer to Bruno’s recent comments on the old post:
* Thanks for helping me sort out my ‘Nagels’! I had them mixed up in EndNote.
* Young? 49 years young. Getting young and seemingly knowing less and less
every day. :-) This I seem to have to
Lee Corbin
I wish to emphasize that according to a traditional realist's
beliefs, observer moments are objective and real, and hence
do exist, so that there is nothing objectionable about speculations
concerning them.
Suppose that a mouse during some small time delta t is in
a particular
From: Lee Corbin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 12:48 AM
John writes
Lee and Stephen:
since we have only our subjective access to out
there does it make any difference if it is REALLY?
like we interpret it, or in an untraceable manner:
different?
Colin
Lee Corbin
Colin writes
ACCURACY
Extent to which a measurement matches an international standard.
REPEATABILITY
Extent to which a measurement matches its own prior measurement.
For example the SICK DME 2000 laser distance measurement instrument
has an accuracy of about 10mm
Lee Corbin
Colin writes
So, for subjective experience: Yes it can be an illusion,
but a systematically erroneous, relentlessly repeatable
illusion driven by measurement of the natural world where
its errors are not important - .ie. not mission fatal to the
observer.
The various 'laws' of quantum mechanics, in the minds of those involved in
their study, have been discovered, as opposed to invented. In the quest to
explain their power in prediction of the behaviour of the natural world I can
make the following observation:
Let's say we do science on
PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 1:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Kaboom
On 24 Aug 2005, at 02:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't even get past the axioms of COMP. They just don’t hold unless I delude
myself that the universe is driven
regrettable snip
Hi Bruno,
The misinterpretations compounded and intermingled so much I decided to cut to
the meat of it.. I suspect that this dialogue will end in the usual way. Being
ignoredThe well worn path of COMP and all the things it says, the idea that
a multiverse explains
I beg the groups indulgenceA question
In your mind there is a great deal of mental manipulation of QM concepts. When
you do that what is your belief about what you are doing?:
a) Do you think you are manipulating(structuring/causally connecting) the stuff
of which the universe is made?
With a total response of 2 (including me) (Thanks Russel!)...
The results of my survey are overwhelmingly in favour of the status of QM as
being that of appearances., although with an N of 2 I'd be a bit optimistic to
get the P value down to anywhere near significance... oh well...
Based on
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 1Z
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 1:09 AM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: Numbers
Georges Quénot wrote:
That too can be discussed. It is not so sure
ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics 0425 253119 ()
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australia
I am writing my high school senior project term paper on defending ethical and
existential nihilism based on quantum and multiverse theory. I was looking for any
comments on the subject. Here I place my outline for said paper:
---
A
I mean not so sound supercilious, but I must admit that all counterarguments thus far
received are points I have foreseen and chosen to omit in the paper for the sake of
length and inherent stupidity of my evaluators. This is why I have come here for
intelligent recluse, as it is, so far, the
38 matches
Mail list logo
