On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 Jason Resch wrote:
> Perhaps this suits you better then: e^(t*i) = 1 + 0
>
As I say there is no disputing matters of taste, but for me the first time
I saw e^i*PI +1 = 0 the zero came as a complete surprise and that added
greatly to its beauty, but I would never have been
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> Religion is about sacrifices.
>
I know, religion is big on sacrifices, especially Christianity, and that's
the problem. It seems to me that a good rule of thumb is be suspicious of
any religion who's most sacred symbol is a torture device. I suppo
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 wrote:
> John, please understand from the Christian pov, that this (Christianity)
> is an attempt to sustain life beyond death,
>
I understand that, but understanding how a stupid point of view came about
does not make that point of view any less stupid.
> Jesus, for them
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:37 PM, wrote:
> The price to pay to have an dualistic explanation for consciousness is
> the total absence of free will.
>
Free will? What an odd term, what in the world does it mean?
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Googl
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 6:02 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> Christianity borrowed heavily from Zoroastrianism: final battle, good
> over evil, judgement day, punishment of the wicked. BUT the punishment
> wasn't eternal and everybody gets to heaven eventually and nobody has to
> get crucified.
>
*Christ
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 Jason Resch wrote:
> To me it seems that must be incorrect, because it would enable super
> luminal communication. By sending a continuous stream of entangled photons
> in opposite directions
>
I can't send a message that way because I have no way of controlling if I
send
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:21 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> I think this misunderstands Jason's thought experiment. I think he's
> assuming the source is polarized at 0deg, the same as A, not a random
> source as you assume.
>
The photon has no polarization at all unless a filter is involved
somewhere.
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013Jason Resch wrote:
> If a photon passes a filter orientated at 0 degrees, then it encounters a
> filter at 90 degrees it will be blocked.
>
How do you know the photon is oriented at 0 degrees? If the photon has
never been measured, if neither it nor its entangled twin has eve
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> So why is it the entanglement is destroyed by the presence of the 45
> degree filter, but not the 0 degree filter?
>
Because before the photon hit the 0 degree filter, that is to say before it
was measured, neither it nor it's entangled twin
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> I am accused of wasting peoples' time by constantly posting here and
> elsewhere on the subject of Leibniz.
>
I have nothing against Leibniz and that's not why you're wasting people's
time, it's because whenever anybody has a problem with wha
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong.
> The irreducible complexity of DNA. See attached.
>
You put no effort into defending your Juvenile ideas so I see no reason why
I should put any effort into attacking them.
John K C
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> in some respects, Roger seems like a shadow version of myself
Does he also engage in astrology and numerology?
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsub
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> > if one is to believe in a god that created everything, then one also has
> to believe that this god
> was malicious enough to plant an incredible amount of false evidence: the
> fossil record,
Yes, but that's not the only reason God woul
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:51 PM, wrote:
> If one has to disprove the best of sciences, which appears to be
> evolutionary adaptation, in order to defend one's religion, then there must
> be something wrong about the religion.
>
Yes, that's why there is something wrong with religion.
> > There's
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 Russell Standish wrote:
> variants like Larmarkianism may well be possible.
>
There are a number of problems with Lamarckism, such as it never having
been observed to occur in the lab or in the wild, and it being completely
inconsistent with our understanding of embryology
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> God doesn't necessarily want *us* to do anything. He wants [...]
>
God wants? He's omnipotent, why doesn't God have?
> instead to work *through* us.
>
If for some obscure reason God want's something then He should get off His
lazy ass and
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> If "not all acquired characteristics are beneficial and in fact the vast
> majority of them are not"
> how is that functionally different from mutations.
>
It is NOT functionally different from mutation, that was precisely my
point. No ma
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
> some feel Epigenetics should only refer to the actual molecular
> mechanisms (such as DNA methylation and histone modification) that alter
> the underlying gene expression; I find this restrictive and use epigenetics
> to also describe inh
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
>> >> It's not news that some chemicals increase the rate of mutation.
>>
>
>
>
> > Epigenetic changes that effect what is transcribed is not mutation – at
> least in the classic sense of changing – i.e. mutating – the underlyin
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
> Re Larmarkian evolution, cultural evolution is usually considered to be
> an examplar of Lamarkian evolution. Knowledge accumulated in one life is
> passed onto the next via books, or in the very olden day oral stories.
>
Yes but even the
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 Russell Standish wrote:
> All evolutionary processes have variation, selection and heredity.
Yes.
> What is missing from cultural evolution is an equivalent of the central
> dogma.
>
How on earth do you figure that? Ideas can be passed from one person to
another. Sometim
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 Chris de Morsella wrote:
> I have heard this survival of the community dynamics being used to
> suggest why for example we still have behaviors such as altruism still
> quite common amongst members of our species
>
It's not just our species that displays altruistic behavior
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 Russell Standish wrote:
> The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed
> residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information.
Yes, but we're not talking about molecular biology, we're talking about
Evolution and it has a different central dogma.
> > I
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>I was wondering if there is any evidence baked into the DNA so to speak;
> in other words are there any areas of coding DNA that are known to be (or
> perhaps suspected of being) linked to and involved with such behavioral
> traits as her
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 , Chris de Morsella wrote:
>> John Epigenetic changes do not change the sequence of bases in DNA, and
>> more important I see no evidence that the body has learned any lessons. I
>> see no evidence that epigenetic changes are more likely to happen in the
>> direction of great
Russell Standish wrote:
> >>>[The central dogma of molecular biology] deals with the detailed
>>> states that such information cannot be transferred back from protein to
>>> either protein or nucleic acid.
>>>
>>>
>> >> I know of no example of a change in a protein making a systematic
>> repeat
>
> I agree that it is useful to try to see things from the genes point of view
>
Yes
> > without of course falling into the mental trap of anthropomorphizing
> the gene and assigning to it qualia that are associated with self-aware
> consciousness.
>
I am unaware of any thinker on evolution wort
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
> When will a computer pass the Turing Test? Are we getting close? Here is
> what the CEO of Google says: “Many people in AI believe that we’re close to
> [a computer passing the Turing Test] within the next five years,” said Eric
> Schmidt
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> I don't really find the Turing Test that meaningful, to be honest.
>
I am certain that in your like you have met some people that you consider
brilliant and some that are as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs, if it's
not the Turing test how
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 Telmo Menezes wrote:
> the Turing test is a very specific instance of a "subsequent behavior"
> test.
>
Yes it's specific, to pass the Turing Test the machine must be
indistinguishable from a very specific type of human being, an INTELLIGENT
one; no computer can quite do th
Aug 16, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:38 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> > On 8/16/2013 1:25 PM, John Clark wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 Telmo Menezes wrote:
> >
> >> > the Turing test is a very specific instance of a
Telmo Menezes wrote:
> You are starting from the assumption that any intelligent entity is
> interested in self-preservation.
>
Yes, and I can't think of a better starting assumption than
self-preservation; in fact that was the only one of Asimov's 3 laws of
robotics that made any sense.
> wond
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 Telmo Menezes wrote:
> If you expect the AI to interact either directly or indirectly with the
>> outside dangerous real world (and the machine would be useless if you
>> didn't) then you sure as hell had better make him be interested in
>> self-preservation!
>>
>
> To some
Telmo Menezes
> >> So if the slave AI has a fixed goal structure with the number one goal
>> being to always do what humans tell it to do and the humans order it to
>> determine the truth or falsehood of something unprovable then its infinite
>> loop time and you've got yourself a space heate
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> We haven't proved our brain is computational in nature,
>
There are only 3 possibilities:
1) Our brains work by cause and effect processes; if so then the same
thing can be done on a computer.
2) Our brains do NOT work by cause and effect proce
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 Telmo Menezes wrote:
> Would you agree that the universal dovetailer would get the job done?
>
I'm not exactly sure what job you're referring to and Bruno's use of a
carpentry term to describe a type of computation has never made a lot of
sense to me.
>> Turing tells us we'
On 8/21/2013 2:42 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Can anyone really say that the possible transient branches a dynamic and
> itself transient network of neural activity can really be determined by any
> possible program no matter how detailed?
>
Yes, I can really say that because there are only 2 po
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> There are only 3 possibilities:
>> 1) Our brains work by cause and effect processes; if so then the same
>> thing
>> can be done on a computer.
>> 2) Our brains do NOT work by cause and effect processes; if so then they
>> are random and the same
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 Chris de Morsella wrote:
> > A stochastic system may be reducible to being modeled by some set of
> random variation
>
Yes.
> >but In reality it is often a whole lot more subtle than that and the
> "randomness" is not random
>
If it's not random then it happened for a r
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODetOE6cbbc
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
> *>> If it's not random then it happened for a reason, and things happen
> in a computer for a reason too.*
>
> > Sure, but the "reason" may not be amenable to being completely contained
> within the confines of a deterministic algorithm
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> Then there are only 2 possibilities:
>> 1) The ultra computer that simulates our world changes from one state to
>> the
>> other for a reason; if so then our simulated computers which change from
>> one
>> state to the other for a simulated reason ca
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
>
>
> > The computer requires a substrate in which to operate upon -- the CPU
> chips for example are what our computers operate on. I know of no computer
> that does not require this external structured environment
>
The human requires
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote
> >>> The computer requires a substrate in which to operate upon -- the CPU
>>> chips for example are what our computers operate on. I know of no computer
>>> that does not require this external structured environment
>>>
>> >> The human re
Suppose that in 1997 you had a very difficult problem to solve, so
difficult that it would take Deep Blue, the supercomputer that beat the
best human chess player in the world, 18 years to solve, what should you
do? You'd do better to let Moore's law do all the heavy lifting and leave
Deep Blue alo
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:09 AM, wrote:
> Supporting the Nazis was the right thing to for the Arabs back then.
> [...] Also I believe that 9/11 was a good thing
You sir are an ass.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List"
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 Telmo Menezes wrote:
> We are now approaching a point where we can have supercomputers with the
> same estimated computational power of a human brain, but we are very far
> from replicating its capabilities.
Very far?
> Chess is a very narrow case
>
But being the best J
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 wrote:
> With hindsight 9/11 was a good thing to have happened,
You sir are an ass.
John K Clark
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
> > All measurable processes – including information processing -- happen
> over and require for their operations some physical substrate. My point,
> which I believe either you may have missed or you are dodging is that
> therefore
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 12:05 PM, wrote:
> With hindsight 9/11 was a good thing to have happened
You sir are an ass.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails f
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
> Fascism unlike Communism (at the level of lip service at least) never
> preached a Universal Fascist state – an 1000 year Reich of one tribe over
> other inferior races maybe, but that idea lacks universal appeal.
>
And lip servic
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 12:36 PM, wrote:
> With hindsight 9/11 was a good thing to have happened
>
You sir are an ass.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
A professional ass who goes by the pseudonym because
he's understandably too embarrassed to give his real name wrote:
> The modern history of Guatemala was decisively shaped by the
> U.S.-organized invasion and overthrow of [blah blah]
>
Dear Mr. Ass
Once somebody knows that you said "supportin
A professional ass who goes by the pseudonym because
he's understandably too embarrassed to give his real name wrote:
> Agree or disagree with me, but it's something that can be debated.
>
Dear Mr. Ass
I'm a bit confused by your use of the word "debated". In your previous post
you proved your
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
> >> And yes half a century ago the CIA over through some 2 bit leaders in
>> Chile and Iran, big deal.
>>
> > John you are either grossly ignorant of history, or squeeze it like
> toothpaste through the aperture of your ideological point o
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
> > I say quite clearly that and I repeat -- I am not interested in nor do
> I much care whether humans are superior or inferior to computers. Take me
> at my word when I say I don’t really care one way or the other, that this
> horse race
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 Chris de Morsella wrote:
> > I was correcting your mischaracterization of two democratically elected
> and popular leaders who were overthrown in bloody CIA backed coups and
> replaced by fascist dictators
>
Yes Chris, the CIA staged those coups, but some countries violently
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 Chris de Morsella wrote:
> you cannot prove that things in the brain happen because of some
> proximate definable and identifiable cause or otherwise they must therefore
> result by a completely random process.
>
Bullshit. Axioms don't need proof, and the most fundamental a
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>>Bullshit. Axioms don't need proof, and the most fundamental axiom in all
>> of logic is that X is Y or X is not Y. Everything else is built on top of
>> that. And only somebody who was absolutely desperate to prove the
>> innate superio
Chris de Morsella wrote:
> I am just asking you to acknowledge you were incorrect in characterizing
> the popular and democratically elected leaders of sovereign states as "two
> bit" leaders.
>
Would you prefer a "Banana Republic Leaders"? In Iran in 1953 women, half
the human race, were not al
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote
> If X = Y AND Y = Z then X = Z This is also logically true, but also has
> no substantial bearing on how the dynamic processes by which the mind
> arises from the 86 billion neuron and 100 trillion connection two phase
> (electro-chemical
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 Russell Standish wrote:
> It is, as always, a confusion of emergence levels. My will is an emergent
> concept,
>
I have noticed a disturbing trend, the use of the word "emergent" as a
excuse for not thinking.
> that has no relevance to the microscopic realm of atoms, molec
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 Chris de Morsella wrote:
> We can hypothesize causality and demonstrate a probability perhaps, and
> there may in fact exist a causal relationship.
>
Then it's deterministic.
> > But if it cannot be demonstrated and traced all the way down the
> incredibly long chain of i
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
> What happens to a universal Turing machine, if the tape itself is being
> written by some other process
>
The same thing that happens to you when you get pushed around by the
external environment.
John K Clark
--
You received this m
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
> do you think I am trying to pretend that I am deterministic within my
> own self?
>
I think you believe you are not deterministic and also not not
deterministic, which is equivalent to saying I think you believe in
gibberish.
> > all
On Sat, Aug 31, wrote:
> at the end of the day I am a dualist
>
I too am a dualist. I believe that John K Clark's brain and even his entire
body is not identical with John K Clark, and I believe that because I
believe in something far far more fundamental, nouns and adjectives are not
identical.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> I have noticed a disturbing trend, the use of the word "emergent" as a
>> excuse for not thinking.
>>
>
> > Sometimes that might be the case. Here, it's context. Free will is a
> human concept.
That is incorrect,"free will" is not a human concept, "
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 Telmo Menezes wrote:
> Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very powerful
> computer precisely predict my
> future behaviour?
Yes, but only if the computer didn't tell me what it predicted beforehand,
because then the computer's actions would effect m
Determinism is not only falsifiable it has been falsified.John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroup
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> If not then my actions could not be predicted because they happened for
>> no reason, they were random.
>>
>
> > Or because of the halting problem,
The halting problem involves predictability not determinism; a Turing
Machine is 100% deterministic bu
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> indeed "free" does not add much to the will, except to emphasize a local
> freedom degrees spectrum.
>
It doesn't even do that. "Will" is the set of things I want to do, but some
of those things may not be physically possible, and some of m
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 2:31 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>
> >>> Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very
>> powerful computer precisely predict my
>> future behaviour?
>
>
> >> Yes, but only if the computer didn't tell me what it predicted
> beforehand, because then the computer
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
> I think your position is ridiculous. Evolution has clearly invested a lot
> of energy into “free will”
>
Can not comment, don't know what ASCII sequence "free will" means.
> > “self-awareness”, and other qualia that characterize consciou
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
> **
>>
>> >>Can not comment, don't know what ASCII sequence "free will" means.
>>
>
>
> You are merely being argumentative here.
>
> I AM NEVER ARGUMENTATIVE!
> You certainly do have a very clear idea of the sensations you experience
> withi
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > Assuming comp it is "absolutely undecidable if our "universe" (if it
> exists) is enumerable or not enumerable,
>
I make no assumptions whatsoever regarding "comp", I never touch the stuff;
but if time and space are quantized (a big "if"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwMyjKQ725E
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:13 PM, meekerdb wrote:
while consciousness may just the data processing feels, there are obviously
> going to be different feelings about different data processing (e.g. hope,
> fear, lust,...)
>
Yes.
> > So I think the interesting question is which data processing goe
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> Coercion is by persons, not by object or logical things...
>
So if I were shipwrecked on a desert island then no matter how much I hated
it there and wanted to get back home I would have complete and absolute
free will, but if I ever did get back to
> > I also agree that the notions of free will and qualia are two different
> things.
>
Yes, they are two very different things; one is gibberish and the other is
not.
> *>to argue that “free will”, “self-awareness” etc. are just noise [...] *
>
Only a fool would say self-awareness is just noise
This is what gives philosophers a bad name! In just one day people have
sent the following philosophical gems to the list, enough hot air to
signifacantly contribute to global warming,
* I also do not “KNOW” whether or not I really do have “free will”. But if
I do [blah blah]
* How do you explai
>
> > You cannot say you meditate on choices and make decisions and then in
> the next breath say that we are deterministic.
>
Why the hell not?!
> > Either we are programs – in which case given a knowledge of our
> algorithms our behavior and outcomes should be predictable based on a
> knowledge
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 wrote:
> Falsifying was a term invented by a philosopher. I forget his name.
Understandable, philosophers are not very memorable. And no philosopher
invented falsifiability, some just made a big deal about something rather
obvious that had already been in use by scientists
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 6:48 PM, wrote:
> Yes, your reading Feyerabend, suggests that [...]
>
Speaking of things that give philosophy a bad name consider these words of
wisdom from Feyerabend:
"The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than
Galileo himself, and also to
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 chris peck wrote:
*>> "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical
>> research program".*
>>
>
> > I don't have any problem with Popper's comments here. I see no reason
> whatsoever for 'Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science' to be
> concerned i
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 12:57 PM, wrote:
> Mach was the big physicist and thermodynamicist, Mach's Principle.
Ernst Mach was a big philosopher but he was more of a medium size
physicist. He wrote his most important scientific paper in 1887, but the
man lived till 1916 and is far far better reme
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 1:04 PM, wrote:
> > by extension, should we not condemm Heisenberg for running the nazis,
> A-bomb program.
>
The fact that Heisenberg ran the Nazi A-bomb program indicates that he was
no expert in the field of ethics, but it in no way diminishes his claim for
being an ex
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> > I think that Feyerabend deserve some respect
>
I promise I will give Feyerabend all the respect he deserves.
>you idiot. Please abstain from insults
>
I love it!
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscri
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:10 PM, chris peck wrote:
> Did you use to post as Major Higgs Boson, or something, on other boards?
>
Nice name but no. I have made thousands of posts over the years and they
have all been under my real name because I am not ashamed of them. Well OK,
one time and just on
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I do not like very much Feyerabend, and disgaree with its overal
> philosophy of science, I do agree with him on Galileo.
>
OK so let me get this straight, you agree that "the church at the time of
Galileo was much more faithful to reason t
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 chris peck wrote:
> it seems to me that John has just misunderstood Feyerabend.
>
It seems to me that "the church at the time of Galileo was much more
faithful to reason than Galileo himself" leaves little room for
misunderstanding and is as clear as it is imbecilic. And I
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>chris Lol.
> A good mockig of the reductionist obsession with the details and despising
> the big picture. For sure you have work hard to certify that John has asked
> that three times and not more nor less.
>
And now, because it is so im
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> I do not like very much Feyerabend, and disgaree with its overal
>>> philosophy of science, I do agree with him on Galileo.
>>>
>>
>> >> OK so let me get this straight, you agree that "the church at the time
>> of Galileo was much more fa
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> deep, clear, precise, unexpected, and true + discovered in the last 2
> centuries by philosopher who is "not scientist" by John Clark's arbitrary
> standards? Ok. Aldous Huxley, writer and philosophical m
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:22 PM, chris peck wrote:
> Given the way John has framed the task any contribution made by xyz will
> end up not being a contribution in philosophy. Take Charles Pierce who
> pretty much founded semiotics and made contributions in fields as diverse
> as psychology and che
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Einstein read Kant, and loved Spinoza, and admit his influence in his own
> research.
>
He may have read and loved detective stories too. Einstein was interested
in things other than science, like politics, and those thinkers may have
helped him there
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> My point was just that the verdict against Galileo was rational, or
> Popperian.
>
I don't believe that Karl Popper was as deep a thinker as many on this list
do, but I don't think he was as big a fool as THAT!
> Aristotle was refuted, but
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> In a conference Dennet said that a country with religious soldiers would
> be defeated by a country ruled by engineers and economists.
>
There is certainly some truth in that. Religion can make otherwise sane
people suicidal and suicida
ato was more correct with respect to comp
>
To hell with "comp"!
> If the physical universe did not exist there would be no Moon, no Earth,
> no Sun, no atoms, no John Clark, and well things would be rather different.
Well, things are not different so logically we can only
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Feynman was very bad in philosophy. Even in the philosophy of QM, he has
> avoided all questions, and only put in footnote some remarks showing that
> he did not believe in the wave collapse. He added often: don't try to
> understand what h
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> Science, or at least theoretical physics, is all about explaining
> physical laws in terms of other more general laws. Either this process goes
> on forever like a infinitely nested Russian doll, or it does not go on
> forever and come
1201 - 1300 of 6747 matches
Mail list logo
