Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
there is no random decay or anything else
There is no way you can deduce that from pure reason and the experimental
evidence strongly indicates that you are wrong about that.
only things that happen without our - so
Brent: this back-and-forth is a marvelous game to go crazy.
If I weren't me who else would be me and who whould I be?
(Only for the IRS!) It points to me at those stupid sci-fi-s about
transportation to Moskow/etc. - or another Universe, and 'living there' -
am I still myself? No way. If I 'live'
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 13 May 2013, at 18:29, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 13.05.2013 17:41 Telmo Menezes said the following:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:
Recently I have listened to a nice talk
Russell and Richard:
do you indeed MEAN those conditions recalled after crises as NEAR DEATH?
Who knows what DEATH feels like? (- if it feels at all). Death is
a-temporal in the sense we use it, also a-spatial, so nothing can be near
it in either sense.
The dissolution of the 'living' complexity
the deaths of these creatures.
Saibal
Citeren John Mikes jami...@gmail.com:
Russell and Richard:
do you indeed MEAN those conditions recalled after crises as NEAR DEATH?
Who knows what DEATH feels like? (- if it feels at all). Death is
a-temporal in the sense we use it, also a-spatial, so
Russell: if I may I inject some remarks ([?])into your post-text
John M
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
My guess is that his primary concern is to develop the medical
technology to resuscitate patients in critical conditions - ie by
lowering the
Bruno:
do you indeed exclude the other animals from being selfconcious? or -
having a logic on their own level? Or any other trait we assign (identify?)
for humans - in our terms?
A question about plants (rather: about being conscious):
you may feel free to define 'being conscious' in human
and go fishing.
John Mikes
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from
experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human
animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical
M
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/27/2013 2:18 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
do you indeed exclude the other animals from being selfconcious? or -
having a logic on their own level? Or any other trait we assign (identify?)
for humans - in our terms
at 2:33 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/28/2013 11:13 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 May 2013, at 19:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/28/2013 9:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 May 2013, at 01:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/27/2013 2:18 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
do you indeed
Brent,
thanks for your clear ideas - not controversial to what I try to explain in
my poor wordings.
No proof is valid, or true. Applicable, maybe.
In our 'makebilieve' world-model many facets SEEM true in our terms of
explanation, i.e. using conventional science and wisdom. Mathematicians are
with proof.
*
But the Löbian point is that proof, even when correct, are falsifiable.
Why, because we might dream, even of a falsification.
On 01 Jun 2013, at 21:41, John Mikes wrote:
* And that's about where I left it - years ago.*
*...*
Interesting difference between 'scientific
Brent wrote (I wish I knew TO whom):
Why not? It acts on the temperature.
Acts? remember my proposed definition for Ccness:
Response to relations (like: temperature).
We are deeply in a semantic fit.
I don't think you wanted to argue with me - just clarifying.
JM
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at
Stephen:
I tried. I have difficulty in following fast talking videos in general,
wouold appreciate to have it as URL somewhere.
John Mikes
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.netwrote:
For your entertainment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature
You are mixing conventional physicalist-materialist apples with imaginary
oranges. Anything 'could be'. Question: would such anything be topic for
this physicalist-based conventional EVERYTHING List?
Q-2: are OUR colors defined for different physical circumstances as well?
BTW - IMO flying is not
Brent: thanx for the text, I downloaded it and still read it. Interesting.
Fun:
it says about math objects that they are abstract. (e.g. No 3) In Hungary
children are taught that an abstract means:non tangible, e.i. not touchable
by bare hands (Hungarian has a better such expression). Jokingly:
Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and smart(est)
scientists SERIOUSLY debate on farces like flying pink elephants?
JM
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/11/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Jun 2013, at 20:04, meekerdb wrote:
Let me interject in *-*marked *BOLD ITALICS* lines into the texts of the
posts below
John M
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 12 Jun 2013, at 21:03, meekerdb wrote:
There's still a free version of PGP available as GnuGP. But people
generally don't
,
not even restrictd to (other) life-creatures).
John Mikes Ph.D., D.Sc.
(I never try to impress with my doctorates).
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
For some time, I have been trying to contact you to inform you
that
consciousness = subject + object
Bruno I admire you for responding to everything, no matter how irrelevant.
Have a pleasant summer
John
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Jun 2013, at 03:26, Roger Clough wrote:
Materialists believe apparently strange things, such as that mind is
Evgeniy, - this is not my table. Not that I disagree with Everett in his
MWI of SIMILAR (identical) universes: I do. My MWI consists of
*universes*(complexities, in MY 'Plenitude'-narrative - what I never
called 'theory')
by occasionally found ingredients with uncontrolled qualia -
haphazardously,
I happen to read the intro summary of the e-book (annonced on another list):
*Scientific Hinduism*:
Bringing Science and Hinduism Closer via Extended Dual-Aspect Monism
(Dvi-Pak?a Advaita)
*By Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal*
(Vision Research Institute, 25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 and
428 Great
After some million years of 'mental' development this animal arrived at the
'mental' fear. Usurpers exploited it by creating superpowers to target it
with assigned intent to help, or destroy. The details were subject to the
'founders' benefit of enslaving the rest of the people into their rule.
...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
John,
On 08 Jul 2013, at 23:03, John Mikes wrote:
After some million years of 'mental' development this animal arrived at
the 'mental' fear. Usurpers exploited it by creating superpowers to target
it with assigned intent to help, or destroy. The details were subject
Brent,
now that Wei Dai reincarnated me to the list, I hurry to agree with you
(almost).
Good/bad is not only a personal Whahooh (Yahoo??) but it is a culture
related (changeable) set of value-judgments.
*
Re: capital punishment:
1. it is not a punishment because after the fact the punished has
please delete
JM
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
This is the 3rd time I send a 'test' to myself. I receive list-post on this
gmail address, but my mail does not show up, neither here nor on the
YAHOO-mail address I unsubscribed from.
Am I still on the No e-mail exclusion?
Or does the listserve not recognise my mailing?
John Mikes
Stathis,
your 'augmentded' ethical maxim is excellent, I could add some more 'except
foe'-s to it.
(lower class, cast, or wealth, - language, - gender, etc.)
The last par, however, is prone to a more serious remark of mine:
topics like you sampled are culture related prejudicial beief-items.
I really should not, but here it goes:
Brent, you seem to value the conventional ways given by the model used to
formulate physical sciences and Euclidian geometry etc. over mental ways or
ideational arguments.
(There may be considerations to judge mixed marriages for good argumentation
without
.
They all are usable tools for some practical tasks as long as we have no
better ones
to use and explanation for them.
In the meantime have a happy new year
John M
On 12/23/06, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Mikes wrote:
Brent:
let me start at the end:
So why don't you believe
certain primitively observed phenomena. All in the sense of physical
edifice-evidence we have FAITH in.
*
BM:
Brent Meeker
*
JM:
John Mikes
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
On 12/25/06, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Mikes wrote:
Tom Caylor wrote:
This looks like Tarski's trick to me. It is an act of faith any time
we take what we say as truth.
On 12/24/06, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I take what I
On 12/25/06, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
JM:
Are you sure there is NO [unlimited] impredicative - non
(Turing-emulable), all encompassing interrelatedness? (which I did not
call a whole)
Sorry. You called it a totality.
Thanx, makes a difference. I consider a whole
in our 3rd millennial positions.
*
I hope I gave a 'civil' response without any aggressivity.
John Mikes
On 12/25/06, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Mikes wrote:
On 12/25/06, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
JM
On 12/28/06, Johnathan Corgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 00:37 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Sure, it's a defect in the brain chemistry, but the delusional person
will give
you his reasons for his belief:
[...]
This is very similar to the arguments of people with
On 1/10/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Marchal writes:
Regarding consciousness being generated by physical activity, would it
help if
I said that if a conventional computer is conscious, then, to be
consistent, a
rock would also have to be conscious?
JM:
Stathis P wrote:1-14-07:
John,
So if a child comes to you and asks what shape the Earth is, will you
reply that some think it's flat, and some think it's spherical, and for the
sake of not being thought ignorant by the majority maybe he should
say it's spherical, but in fact there is no reason
Thank you
John M
On 1/14/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Mikes wrote:
Stathis P wrote:1-14-07:
John,
So if a child comes to you and asks what shape the Earth is, will you
reply that some think it's flat, and some think it's spherical, and for
the
sake of not being
cannot help to compare them with earlier 'conclusions' that had to be
changed - and THEN I apply strong induction for the unforeseeable changes
our present wisdom will undergo over future epochs.
People involved in practical developmental work should not listen to me.
John Mikes
On 1/14/07, Wei Dai
Dear Bruno,
I read with joy your long and detailed 'teaching' reply (Hungarian slogan:
like a mother to her imbecil child) and understood a lot (or so I think).
I am not entusiastic about a sign-language (gesticulated or written) instead
of words, because I did not familiarize myself into its
Bruno,
as another chap with learned English in vertical stance I partially
agree with your 'plural' as would all English mother-tongued people, but I
also consider the gramatically probably inproper points of views, since WE
allow different 'views' in our considerations. Stathis may choose his
Thanks, Russell.
I believe my slip is showing that I did not follow the Mallah related
posts.
If someone concentrates on just certain topics, may miss something.
You are very kind
John
On 1/24/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 03:54:32PM -0500, John M
Stathis, Bruno,
This summary sounds fine if I accept to 'let words go'. Is there a way to
'understand' (=use with comprehension) the 'words' used here without the
'technical' acceptance of the theoretical platform?
There are sacrosanct 'words' used without explaining them (over and over
again?,
that every time I try to follow and respond to
something, everything seems to have proliferated AND gone just that little
bit further out of reach!
Regards
Mark Peaty CDES
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ http://www.arach.net.au/%7Empeaty/
John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
has
Stathis:
is it not a misplaced effort to argue from one set of belief system ONLY
with a person
who carries two (or even more)? I had a brother-in-law, a devout catholic
and an excellent
biochemist and when I asked him how can he adjust the two in one mind, he
answered:
I never mix the two
Stathis,
maybe I shoot too high, but I was expecting something better from you, at
least referring to what I said.
John
On 2/6/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
You shouldn't have one criterion for your own beliefs and a different
criterion for everyone else's. If
Hi, Hal:
and you really think there would be an end? Look at this list with allegedly
like-minded chaps and no end of picking on 'everything'. Include
like-minded lists - meaning 'unlike' really - and the internet would fill
up.
Does it make a difference to argue here, or at another site?
Our
Jason,
just about the technicalities: I tried the main page with 2-3 topics and the
result was no such title. Categories I did not venture into, because to
find the right wording/spelling requires familiarity in our lingo and I had
in mind to educate the innocent(ignorant) by passers outside
to be stuck on some post, etc.).
Best,
Bruno
Regards
Mark Peaty CDES
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
John Mikes wrote: Bruno:
has anybody ever seen numbers? (except for Aunt Milly who
dreamed up the 5 numbers she saw in her dream - for the lottery
Jason,
the reason why I was so happy with your Wiki-idea and solution were MY
difficulties
in reading (mainly in Bruno's correspondence) - getting lost in 'letters',
acronyms,
multiple-step references to such - all (or most) explained in due course of
his writings - as they came forward in his
Brent:
2 questions (and pls try to take them seriously):
1. do you have a common-sensibly expressible meaning for 'conscious' - in
this respect, of machines (computers being so? (conscious of - is easier,
but also not obvious).
2. The BBC article allows 'scans' to inform about 'theoretical'
Thanks, Bruno, lots of remarkable notions in your remarks (I mean: I can
write remarks to them 0 sorry for the pun). Let me interject in Italics
below.
John
On 2/5/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi John,
Le 03-févr.-07, à 17:20, John Mikes a écrit :
Stathis, Bruno
Short remark interleft in italics
John
On 2/20/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Mikes wrote:
Brent:
2 questions (and pls try to take them seriously):
1. do you have a common-sensibly expressible meaning for 'conscious' -
in this respect, of machines (computers being
standard of saneness (ref: G. Levy)?
John Mikes
On 2/20/07, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 2/20/07, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would bet on functionalism as the correct theory of mind for
various
reasons, but I don't see
This has been a long discussion between Jason and Mark. How do I get into it
is
by Mark's remark:
I don't think I go anywhere as far as John M. in this but then maybe that
is just because I fear to let go of my sceptical reductionist walking stick.
--Stop half-way: when the guy received $10,000
.
That was in the Judeochristian domain. He was right on the button.
Is the Judeochrismuslim argumental domain different?
Such discussions cannot be resolved into any agreement of the 2 poles.
Anybody arguing - MY - point?
John Mikes
On 2/26/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But how do
Chris,
I am with this list for a decade or so, and learned that this group accepts
a negative
position as well, not only 'hosanna' to the 'officially (here) accepted one.
So here it
comes:
In my (heretic? and personal) view
1. universes in the Multiverse are not necessarily identical, indeed all
Jason, after Danny's very interesting treatise your reply gave me a clue I
completely misunderstood so far. As i wrote to Brent, my vocabulary is not
your
vocabulary and the meanings mix up. Simulation emerged to me as 'copying',
while
you lit up the little lamp to consider it as 'forming a
point that I resist to reach back in statements to a
state that may have been (or may not have been?) before (outside?) our
comprehensive limits.
John M
On 3/6/07, 明迪 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear John Mikes, I thought your words 'Origin of (our) universe' are the
same as the word 'origination
i ENVY YOU, guys, to know so much about BHs to speak of a singularity.
I would not go further than according to what is said about them, they may
wash off whatever got into and turn into - sort of - a singularity.
Galaxies, whatever, fall into those hypothetical BHs and who knows how much
Dark
Dear Jesse,
thanks for the cool and objective words.
I take it back (not what I said: I mean the topic) further. Our edifice of
physical science
is a wonderful mental construct, balanced by applied math, all on quantities
fitting the reduced models of historical observations from the hand-ax on.
Let me reverse the sequence of your post for my ease:
The last part: If we accept Bruno's we are god
I have never said that. The most I have said in that direction, is
that, assuming comp, the first person inherits God' unanmeability.
So the first person has some god attribute. you cannot infer
Sorry, Danny, for my convoluted style. Also, for having missed you
'original' explanation of (your) God. I try to concentrate on SOME of the
texts, it is getting too much indeed, to memorize week long postings of
many.contributors..
You wrote:
Kim, thanks for your observing 'lurking' about the 'hatchet'. I do not
believe that we would have buried it into each others' head, I accepted that
Bruno may be irritated (by my question/remark, or by other business).
To your choice of Q-#1: recalls my usual doubt in Mark's Plain English:
does
this
question, because I did not read about the 3-pole distinction of it).
Cheers
John M
On 3/12/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400, John Mikes wrote:
In the sci-fi I wrote in 1988-89 I depicted the 'story' of human
evolving as
done
Thanks, Bruno,
The 'truth' was missing from my post.
there was a technical mistake: from my sentence as mailed:
Being a he you pointed to (rejcted though as 'atheist') I really do
not ' believe. What I
find logically not so repugnant -
one word disappeared in the mailing process. Originally
Mark,
let me play with your postulate (plain English) vs your text YOU wrote.
To be translated into plain language: Mass, energy, space-time, even
'matter'. (The last one SOUNDS like plain English, yet not in the context we
use it.)
Don't take it too hard. We are used to this lingo, after the
That's all fine and I appreciate the position (once we 'have gotten' to
circumstances providing the idea of a Loeb machine) - what I want to inject
is Dr. Johnson's stone,
which is not 'mind-stuff'' and in his shoe DID HURT (his mind). Not vice
versa.
Please, let it go as a remark outside the
On 3/28/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 26-mars-07, à 01:34, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Standard computationalism is just the theory that your brain could be
replaced with an appropriately configured digital computer and you
would not only act the same, you would also
but hope in progressing into a better
understanding.
Most advanced poisitions of today still anchor in the old views. We CANNOT
do better. I condone it as a possibiloity of stepping forward.
You as part of the new generation may get further.
John Mikes
On 3/13/07, 明迪 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Dear Stathis, sorry for the delay, I had to 'save' most of this response and
finish it later. Of course that will show in the inadequacy of the last
part, a second guess never matches.-
*
I tried to direct that overgrown discussion back to Earth, you went up the
clouds again.
Let me, please,
accommodating than it turned out to be. Sorry.
John
On 3/31/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/31/07, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The non-standard part of Bruno's comp, as I see it, is to accept that
computation can lead to thought but to reject the physical
Mark,
you asked interesting questions, but I think the fundamental ones are still
'out there':
MP:(bold and in bold):
I mean the big and unanswered question is WHERE are numbers?
I would ask (joining your heresy):
1. Where did numbers come from? (an answer may be: They are GOD to believe
in).
2.
Jamie,
wise words, but no cigar here. For a RE-Evaluation I have insufficient
knowledge even in the E - to compare it into a RE-.
Statistical is different: I question the topical meaning, as being just a
'model'-related idea (in MY sense: as a limited topical fraction of the
totality within
, in 1940-42, then again for Ph.D. in 1947
then forgot them and the others before many of the esteemed list-members
were born.
So allow me to reflect later and thanks again
John
On 4/25/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi John,
The 24 Feb 2007, à 23:59, John Mikes wrote in parts, to Jason
Interleaving ONE tiny question:
On 4/20/07, Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Jason:)
...Personhood becomes fuzzy and a truly object treatment of conscious
experience might do well to abandon the idea of personal identity
altogether. ...
Sais WHO?
John
Dear Bruno,
I look at your 'chat' with Max and Juergen with awe: some words do sound
as if representing some meaning to me, too, from my earlier accumulation of
readings.
My idea about your uncertainty of the application of 'comp' (and 'physical')
could be (poorly) worded in your 'logician',
have memories of experiencing the same observer's past
perspectives in no way implies there is a single consciousness that
follows a person as they evolve through time (even though it very much
seems that way subjectively).
Jason
On Apr 26, 3:11 pm, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
it have 'rules' on 'how much' to disclose in an interview? Who's rules?
the Allmighty? but that is the LM itself!
You see, I am confused. (ha ha) good for me.
Wishing you the best
John
On 5/2/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear John,
Le 30-avr.-07, à 20:57, John Mikes a écrit
yours. To round up' your theory in a discussion with a different
stance.
If you find it useless, tell me: I will stop sending them. J
==
On 5/3/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 02-mai-07, à 17:49, John Mikes a écrit :
One wisdom above all others
Looks fine;
you 'postulate' exactly what you need for your story and then apply them.
So your story comes 'true' - just like in conventional physical sciences.
a bit like the 'numbers-related image that moves (!) - it would need an
additional postulate to 'start the movement' (- by itself?). Is
Torgny: [[cute]]
SAIS W H O
I found Stathis' reply before I read your tirade. I agree and add: I think
you 'are' a typical 'voter'.
(in the political sense).
Have a life!
John M
On 6/1/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am unconscious.
I have no mind. I have no
As we said it in Hungary: let the 'bartender' talk into it...
*
I feel it is a vague metaphor to have 'brain centers stimulated'- HOW? - as
persuaded them to do something? There are physiologic activities translated
(somewhere, somehow) into mental events and so far we know(?) about electric
Mark,
you put your finger usually on the 'not-so-obvious' (but relevant). I
confess to not having memorized all the posts concerning conscious(ness?) on
this list since 1996 or so, but looked up the topic prior to that.
I found a historically developing noumenon, unidentified and a loose cannon,
Bruno;
how about adding to Tom's reality survey the anti Aeistotelian: Reality is
what we don't see?
We get a partial impact of the 'total' and interpret it 1st person as our
'reality', as it was said some time ago here (Brent?) perceived reality
what I really liked . Then came Colin with his
Colin and partners:
To the subject question: how do you know your own conscious state? (It all
comes back to my 'ceterum censeo': what are we talking about as
'consciousness'? -
if there is a concensus-ready definition for open-minded use at all).
And a 2nd question: May I ask: what is
miss
all the good bits with your finger on the 'fast forward' button?
:-)
Regards
Mark Peaty (Dilettante - still practising :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
John Mikes wrote:
Hi
On 6/16/07, *Colin Hales* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
David wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jun 21, 2007 2:31 PM
David, you are still too mild IMO. You wrote:
... there is a mathematical formalism in which interaction is modelled in
terms of 'fields'.
I would say: we call 'fields' what seems to be callable 'interaction' upon
the outcome of certain
. Computers?
Have a good weekend
John Mikes
On 6/20/07, David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 5, 3:12 pm, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I don' think we can be *personally* mistaken about our own
consciousness even if we can be mistaken about anything
are conscious?
(Conscious is more meaningful than cc-ness). Or rather: How would
you know if you are NOT conscious? Well, you wouldn't. If you can,
you are conscious. Computers?
Have a good weekend
John Mikes
On 6/20/07, David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun
' and 'comp' also
belong into the formulations of the (present) human mind accessible logical
level. I find 'nature' not subject to such, - this is my (science)
agnosticism.
John
On 6/10/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 09-juin-07, à 22:38, John Mikes a écrit :
Bruno;
how
with the proviso: In our human view
John
On 7/27/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for your gentle remarks. I will comment your last remark.
Le 27-juil.-07, à 02:59, John Mikes a écrit :
Bruno,
thanks for your detailed reply to my 6-09-07 post which I read only
7-26-09
On 8/9/07,
On 09/08/2007, at 5:06 AM, Brent Meeker wrote:
Here's a school that's ahead of Bruno in taking consistency to be
part of theology. :-)
http://chfbs.org/high_school/high_sch_math.htm
Brent Meeker
I clicked up the URL: it does not seem to include anyrhing like
Dear Bruno,
did your scientific emotion just trapped you into showing that your
theoretical setup makes no sense?
Angels have NO rational meaning, they are phantsms of a (fairy?)tale and if
your math-formulation can be applied to a (really) meaningless
phantasy-object, the credibility of it
increasing epistemy.
I keep lurking and when my mouse starts squeaking in common sense, I will
put in a post.
With appreciation for your (plural) advanced knowledge
John Mikes
On 8/13/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear John,
Le 12-août-07, à 18:00, John Mikes a écrit :
Dear Bruno
don't want to persuade anybody to
accept MY views. I offer them for consideration - period.
Sorry for the longwinded chit-chat.
John
On 9/11/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 10-sept.-07, à 21:03, John Mikes a écrit :
Dear Bruno, i failed to acknowledge your kind reply - and others
it in. If you cannot get it, I may attach the text
in a private e-mail)
John
On 9/12/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le 12-sept.-07, à 00:41, John Mikes a écrit :
...some quotes above
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal
Torgny, thanks for your explanations...Let me interject
John
On 9/17/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Mikes skrev:
- 1.- Q: *What are light and fermions?*
- A: Light is a fluctuation of closed strings of arbitrary sizes.
Fermions are ends of open strings.
- 2
, with enough (non-math) imagination, string does not.
This is my way to look at it, I am not ready to defend it. Especially not on
the turf of the opponent.
Regards
John Mikes
On 9/24/07, Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
New Scientist has an article on parallel universes:
David Deutsch
maybe a solution, but maybe also an impractical
cop-out.
John Mikes
On 9/27/07, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason, let me split your ideas into two problems.
The first problem is to understand why and how observers interpret
data in a meaningful way despite of the fact
401 - 500 of 1087 matches
Mail list logo
